Re: REST, uniformity and semantics

> > "REST is really a semantic issue"
> 
> This is shorthand for: the REST constraints represent constraints on 
> the semantics of message delivery.

The context was a little choppy, granted, but my objections
remain.  You either mean

    (1) that REST imposes meaning on message exchange, or
    (2) every REST constraint is about the elevation of meaning
    [(3) I don't know what you mean, and my head hurts]

My counter to (1) is that constraint lending meaning (at least
in someone's eyes) is a universal concept, not specific to REST

My counter to (2) is that some REST constraints have little
to do with one agent conveying a meaning to another agent, the
"stateless server" constraint being a prime example.

My counter to (3) is, well, Advil.

> > and in the second place, all of "services", as I understand
> > it (them) is "really a semantic issue".  If a change wrought on
> > your behalf (you are the client) has no meaning to you,
> > hence no "semantic", then it COULD NOT be a service.  Not
> > no way; not nohow. :-)
> 
> Well, I guess you have semantics, Semantics and SEMANTICS :-)

Of the four things listed there, I like the ":-)" the best.  Because
if we have to navigate all those meanings for semantics....we should
forget about leading meaningful lives and go back to tearing our
prey apart. :-)

> > Finally, as to "levels"
> >
> > 1. "Messages have senders".
> >
> > 2. "Server space complexity is not linear in the number of clients."
> 
> This would be a `level 2' assertion; however, I don't see what kind of 
> constraint this is. How do I measure conformance to it?

Strange question.  You examine the server heap and look for
stored client session state.  (Let's not go off into the stratosphere
talking about measurement, okay?)

Why would it be a level 2 assertion any more than "messages have
senders"?  It has nothing to do with the meanings exchanged in
messages, or any kind of shared context.

--Walden

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 12:57:09 UTC