- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:19:02 -0500
- To: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 03:53:58PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote: > Only with the rider that tightening the interface constraint will entail > loosening some other constraint. It's all swings and roundabouts. > > My problem with your way of formulating the problem is that it seems to > focus near exclusively on one particular aspect. You want to optimize > wrt that axis, and I'm pointing out that there are many axes and that a > global optimum doesn't necessarily coincide with a one-dimensional one. Yes, you have to suck up the cost of the general interface. I've never said otherwise. As Roy says; "The trade-off, though, is that a uniform interface degrades efficiency, since information is transferred in a standardized form rather than one which is specific to an application's needs." -- http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_5 Personally I consider that an extremely small price to pay for the benefits gained. Anyhow, I agree to wrap up this "summing up" thread now, and agree to disagree. It seems that only Walden Matthews and James Snell[1] agreed with my characterization of visibility, of those who spoke up. Is that enough to get it in to the WSA doc? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jan/0249 MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 11:18:26 UTC