RE: A Modest Proposal (was RE: Binding)

Mike,

I do second your proposal.

There has been enough distraction already.

I do suggest that proper teams be setup ASAP to start working on the
scenarios.

abbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: A Modest Proposal (was RE: Binding)
> 
> 
> 
> In my very humble and personal opinion, the "REST vs web 
> services" permathread has made very little progress in its 
> latest incarnation.  In my more paranoid moments, I wonder 
> whether the point is to distract us from all the other issues 
> on the WSA WG agenda.
> 
> My experience with W3C WGs suggests that when people are 
> talking past one another and repeat the same arguments over 
> and over, it's time to do something different. Generally, 
> that involves getting VERY concrete about what the spec 
> should say and avoiding the temptation to drag in large scale 
> abstractions, textbook arguments, and so forth. Here's my proposal:
> 
> - Let's accept that the charter and requirements of this WG 
> are more or less fixed; they can easily accomodate *both* 
> RESTful and RESTless architectural styles, but they can't 
> allow us to simply accept one and ignore the other. The issue 
> the WSA document must address is not "which is the One True 
> Architectural Style" but "what are the 
> advantages/disadvantages of each and the situations under 
> which one or the other has been shown to work better."
> 
> - Let's focus on what the WSA document should SAY about the 
> relationship between the WSA and the Webarch.  Propose text 
> and critique other proposals.
> 
> Mine the archives of this mailing list for prose; I'm 
> reasonably sure that just about everything that can be said 
> on this subject has been said in there somewhere already :-)
> 
> - The most useful thing I can think of for the document would 
> be to take one or more simple but realistic use cases and 
> describe a RESTful and a conventional SOAP/WSDL approach to 
> the problem, then assess their strengths/weaknesses.
> 
> - There's a classic conflict resolution technique which 
> advocates of each side are required to state the position of 
> the OTHER side to its satisfaction.  Something to think about 
> ... Even if you can't think of a plausible RESTful or 
> RESTless (depending on your point of view) approach to a 
> particular scenario, think of a scenario in which "the other 
> side's" approach is better suited.  
> 
> - Let's try to avoid appeals to authority, intellectual, 
> administrative, religious, or otherwise!  There's ain't no 
> authority on the Web other than "what works". I (wearing my 
> co-chair hat) am committed to helping produce the best 
> statement we can come up with on what the WS Architecture is, 
> can be, and should be.  If some authority figure doesn't like 
> it, he/she can
> participate in the discussion and persuade us otherwise.   
> 
>