Re: The UR Trout: Web Services, REST, SOAP

Just that REST conformance is mentioned as a goal for the proposal "when
possible and practical", yet only the reason given for not being REST is
the vague notion of "simple" vs "complex" communications.  What are
those?

(that's a rhetorical question; it's just the big question that this
text raises for me)

FWIW, I'm not expecting to agree with whatever text is accepted.  In
fact, I'm expecting to disagree quite strongly with it.  But I want it
to at least be clear about what it means, and IMO, "simple" and
"complex" doesn't do that.

MB

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:58:57PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> 
> "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> writes:
> > -1, I suppose.  I really like the idea of a bite sized chunk describing
> > the raison d'etre of Web services (when compared to the Web), but I'd say
> > that this text raises more questions than it answers.
> 
> Such as? (Not sure whether I want to hear the answer but what the heck.)
> 
> FWIW I thought the paragraph was a nice comprising, sensitive description
> which actually makes complete technical sense .. if you don't need the
> complexity and power of SOAP & WSDL, just do HTTP & XML.
> 
> Sanjiva.

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 09:41:24 UTC