- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:21:23 -0700
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
That is helpful, thanks Mark. I will look at simple/complex and the goal Chris identified about capabilities of current messaging systems. What I was going for was more nueanced and complex communication patterns such asd reliable, multi-phase transactional conversations/communications. These "complex" patterns require web service architecture to achieve a balance between straightforward implementations and the ability to have interface details visable and readily accessable. (that leaves open question around "interfacve details", more on that later). DaveH -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:47 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: 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 10:21:28 UTC