Re: Summing up on visibility(?)

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:03:21PM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote:
> Sure, but I kinda wish you wouldn't preface your proposed text with "Web
> services wishing to take advantage of the XXX properties of the REST
> architectural style ...".  Remember that the target audience has no idea
> what architectural style they want to use, they just have problems they need
> to solve, and are looking for guidance as to how to go about them.  (Well,
> in our case, it's problems that can be solved by writing a spec, not
> problems to be solved by writing some code).   If you could draft something
> that reflects problems (whatever problem is "solved" by visibility) rather
> than solutions ("the REST architectural style") it would help us better
> understand what to do with it.  But I wouldn't object if the specific role
> only applies if you accept other REST principles. As an analogy,  an argment
> for PUT as an interface only "applies" if you ensure that PUT operations are
> idempotent. 

I'd like to phrase it this way, but I doubt the group would ever agree,
because I'd have to say things like "If you want to cross firewalls,
don't put methods in the body", which clearly people disagree with.
That's why I decoupled the description/identification of visilibity from
the conclusions about its role and value.

Can you think of some other way in which this might be handled?  FWIW, I
think the term "REST" will by now be familiar to many readers of the
architecture document.  Perhaps a "Using REST with Web services"
section for them?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 13:15:59 UTC