- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:07:40 -0500
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:07:05PM -0800, Burdett, David wrote: > MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES > > My personal preference is for variant 6 (sorry Mark it's not URI's!) and > here's why ... I understand what you're saying, and you do make many valid points (though most have been addressed for some time, such as what to do about disclosing information in URIs). But respectfully, you're not looking at this from an architectural POV, which I believe is the only way to propertly evaluate these solutions. My preference would be for a solution that is designed within the constraints of an architectural style that is suitable for use on the Internet. We know that REST is such an architectural style, as it describes the architecture of a good part of the working Web (though of course there are other styles in use on the Internet). We don't know that the style implicit in variant 6 exhibit the properties required for Internet scale use (such as visibility), though I'd be more than happy to learn from you why you think it might, specifically what constraints it uses, what properties those constraints induce, and why you consider those properties to be sufficient for deployment on the Internet. Thanks. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 14:04:44 UTC