- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:06:44 -0500
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Hi David, On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:33:05AM -0800, Burdett, David wrote: > You are right, you can any operation fit the REST model - don't think anyone > would argue against that. But that does not necessarily may it "right". For > example a family of six could live in a one room apartment, but that's not > necesarily a "right thing" to do. You *need* to make the solution a good fit > to the problem you are trying to solve. Agreed. > This is why, even though you *can* do it using REST you should not for > reasons of privacy, transport-protocol independence, message integrity as > specified in [1], and for the need to record information over and above a > simple "POST" as described in [2]. I disagree quite strongly. Those are not architectural properties, and I believe that architectural styles should be evaluated with respect to the architectural properties they induce. Those things you list are features of a *system*, not an architectural style. I could develop two REST based systems, one with no privacy, and one with all kinds of privacy mechanisms. The interesting question is to look at the Web (of which a large part is a REST system), and ask if it has the necessary privacy requirements. If it does, great. If it doesn't, let's create a WG to define some specs for how to do this within the constraints of REST. s/privacy/your-favourite-thing > My guess, though, is that we will just have to agree to disagree. I hope not, but this wouldn't be the first time. 8-( MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 14:03:21 UTC