- From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:40:38 -0500
- To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Arkin, > > Actually, I didn't think of asking them to do anything. I was just > > prying at some stuff that looked to me like popular fallacy, in the hope > > that if distinct points were put to rest, different conclusions might > > emerge. I think I showed how a legacy service with no idempotent > > operations can be wrapped in an idempotent interface [1]. This was > > counter to a claim that the only way to get to idempotence was to > > burden the client with sequence numbers. No one has answered my > > claim or provided a harder case. This was supposed to be a reason > > why RM was necessary. I'm just wondering if that opinion moved > > even slightly in response to my post. > > Can you repeat the explanation? It's at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jan/0326.html. /Walden
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 17:40:48 UTC