RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3

Would you be happy with RPC SOA?

Hao

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:14 AM
To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3



Application interface SOA doesn't differentiate from REST as HTTP is an
application protocol, and application interface and application protocol
seem awfully close to me.  Maybe API SOA is the right kind of language, and
maybe RESTless SOA is just like CGI.  Let's just embrace our "bad" behaviour
:-)

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 11:03 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 1:08 PM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> >
>
>
> >
> > I do wish we'd figure out a term for a "non-restful soa"
> > other than "non-restful" :-)  Some ideas, mostly lame:
> > - application specific interface SOA
> > - non-generic interface SOA
> > - custom interface SOA
> > - indirect resource manipulation SOA
>
> How about "application interface SOA"  (I could live with
> "application-specific interface SOA", but it is a bit of a
> mouthful).   I
> think that evokes the idea of an "application programming
> interface" and
> "common gateway interface" without getting into the "RPC" morass nor
> implying that Web services are the same thing as CGI.
>
>