W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document

From: He, Hao <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:13:44 +1100
Message-ID: <686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB0922DFD5@sydthqems01.int.tisa.com.au>
To: "'Jim Webber'" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "He, Hao" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Josh Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Cc: Michael Champion <mc@xegesis.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Yes, you cannot get lower than 1. However, it is not "the less the better".
It is "a small set of well-defined verbs" that does the trick.  The Web
already has GET,POST, DEL and PUT, so why reinvent the "wheel" in SOAP?  If
you want to call something Web services, why don't do it the Web way?  What
strikes me is that people want to call SOAP exclusively "the Web service"
but they just view the Web merely as a transfer protocol.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Webber [mailto:Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2004 13:57
To: He, Hao; David Orchard; Josh Sled; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: Michael Champion; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document


> I would argue that the reason you want to limit the number of 
> verbs is that we are consuming services.

Fine. I can reduce the number of verbs from my original two (SEND and
RECEIVE) to just one (SEND). That certainly seems like the minimum I can
get away with, can the REST approach do any better :-)


Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 22:12:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:58 UTC