RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability

RE: REST, Conversations and ReliabilityHeck, I wouldn't accept a WSA built
on RPC/OMG OMA principles either.  There's this great stuff like SOAP, XML,
URIs, HTTP, the web, etc. out there  ;-) No fine-grained tightly coupled
object/API based binary encoded interchanges and binary encoded addressing
formats that ignore the network and specify implementation details for me...
Where the analogy to OMG OMA is useful is in describing the goals and
objectives of application to application integration, and learning from much
of what worked and didn't with OMG - because certainly OMG worked in many
areas.  In particular, the separation of concerns between the application
and the services of the underlying network infrastructure, like reliability.
It's probably really useful in other areas that I just haven't thought of in
my current 2 minutes of thought on the topic.

Cheers,
Dave
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
  Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:01 AM
  To: Burdett, David; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
  Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
    Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:57 AM
    To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
    Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability



    Doesn't SOAP build on the Web? Isn't SOAP 1.2 being developed within the
W3C? Why are you so SURE that the "W3C staff/director/TAG" would not accept
a WSA built primarily on SOAP?

  Oops! Violated my own dictum that "SOAP" != "RPC"

  I meant that the W3C staff/director/TAG would not accept a WSA built
primarily on RPC / OMG OMA  principles.  Obviously SOAP 1.2 reflects these
concerns and sorry for the confusion.