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

I guess it does not hurt to have a little technical chat after the group is
finished.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2004 14:51
To: 'He, Hao'; 'Jim Webber'; 'Josh Sled'; 'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'
Cc: 'Michael Champion'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document



Why is this discussion happening?  Why even join the ws-arch group if you
don't like SOAP?  I can't get over that you even want to talk about this.

Dave

ps. The folks that tunnel over HTTP are using SOAP as a transport.  You want
them to use it as a transfer protocol.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: He, Hao [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:14 PM
> To: 'Jim Webber'; 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
>
>
> 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.
>
> Hao
>
> -----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
>
>
>
> Hao:
>
> > 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 :-)
>
> Jim
>