- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:23:44 -0500
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
But people want a little more power over their interfaces than just GET/POST/PUT/DELETE. They like to be able to use POST to tell a resource a little more information about how some posted information should be processed. After all, a resource might be able to do multiple things. Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:08 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Roy's ApacheCon presentation > > > > Hi Mike, > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:33AM -0700, Champion, Mike wrote: > > > If you don't buy that argument, would you agree that having less > > > interfaces means easier integration? i.e. that it's easier if all the > > > insurance companies agree on a standard interface than it would be if > > > they didn't? > > > > I don't see any evidence that this is true. CORBA, HTTP, etc. > > deal with the protocols for shipping data around; IDL and WSDL > > deal with interface definitions, XML deals with the data format > > and encoding issues. > > That's not true. HTTP defines the interface, the same way IDL or > WSDL does. Transport protocols, like TCP, do the "shipping data > around" for HTTP. > > > > If so, would you also agree that if banking and CRM > > > companies could agree to wrap themselves in the same interface, that > > > this would further reduce integration costs? And if yes to that, then > > > wouldn't the ultimate interface be one that could wrap all systems? > > > > I'm afraid we have to get into the S-word ("semantics" ... shudder). > > CORBA assumes that someone has mapped the meaning of of the interaction > > onto methods and arguments, REST assumes that the meaning of > the interaction > > is encoded as a "document". > > No, REST assumes that the meaning of the interaction has been mapped to > methods and arguments as well. Just the same methods and arguments as > everybody else (uniform). > > If we want an apples-to-apples, no red herrings comparison here, we can > ignore data semantics, because both styles have exactly the same problem > to overcome in this regard; once you've got data, how do you process it? > > MB > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > > Will distribute objects for food >
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 12:21:34 UTC