RE: Reducing complexity

hi,

I do concur with Mike.

I have  seen enough of this argument so far !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Please let us focus on the main issues, and "yes" SOAP and WSDL are on the
table.

abbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:24 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Reducing complexity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:30 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Reducing complexity
> > 
> > 
> 
> > That's wrong, but I think I understand why you believe it 
> so.  Correct 
> > me if I'm wrong, but it's because you don't believe that 
> GET and POST 
> > (and all HTTP methods and extension methods), are 
> application methods, 
> > the same as GetLastTradePrice.
> > 
> > Well, whether or not you believe it, they are application methods. 
> > That's a *fact*.
> 
> We might as well be arguing about the true nature of the 
> Trinity, or the true heirs of the Prophet, or [pick your 
> favorite bloody religious dispute]. This is not about truth, 
> it's about belief systems.  Let's PLEASE PLEASE stay away 
> from the "HTTP is an application protocol not a transport 
> protocol" issue.  Mark, if you want the TAG to slap WSA's 
> wrists about it, go for it!  [But wear your flamesuit when 
> you do :-) ]
> 
> My canonical plea from my side of the co-chair is that we 
> need to focus on what unites us, not what separates us.  URIs 
> everywhere, and the web method support in SOAP, and the goal 
> of minimizing the disconnect between "the web" and "web 
> services" are RESTful things we can all live with.  Of 
> course, we can't ignore the trout flopping out of the ponds 
> forever, and some things like "what is the role of SOAP and 
> WSDL in the canonical definition of a web service" *are* on 
> the table.  But intractable religious disputes are not.
> 
>