- From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 08:09:14 -0400
- To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>, edwink@collaxa.com, "Baker, Mark" <distobj@acm.org>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> I am also not opposed to compromise, but compromise requires each side to accept the validity of the other's view, and I had not been seeing that acceptance in many of the emails going back and forth, basically making the same arguments as have been made for three years, and then stating that the other side doesn't accept them because of a lack of understanding. That is just wrong and completely unhelpful to the WG's goals. Eric, Is there a polite way to assert that many still don't understand REST very well? It's too bad there isn't a 100-question quiz for people to test their understanding, huh. Personally, I think my understanding sucks (too little experience), but I can identify regular problems with this group around the following: What is an architectural constraint? Characterize at least two different kinds of application state. (T or F) The best distributed applications are "stateless". What is an "engine of application state"? What is it about hypertext that relates to state engines? Compare/contrast *idempotent* and *safe*. What does the Fielding thesis say about idempotent methods? What's wrong with PUT? What are the REST "verbs" (trick question)? (T or F) Adopting resource orientation means rewriting legacy apps. (T or F) Data encoded in XML are "visible" because XML is a standard. Need 89 more questions... --Walden
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 08:06:20 UTC