- From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@propylon.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:54:50 +0000
- Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Mike Champion wrote: > Ummm think about it .... am I "attacking REST" by asserting that it hits > the 80/20 point for many web-based services but has no well-known > success stories for more complex integration situations? On reflection "attacking" wasn't fair, so my apologies. But in my defence I've seen "it's a complex problem" and suchlike used enough times to circumvent debate on achitectural options to be wary. As for the text, instead of simple v complex, perhaps the doc could talk about classes of problem. Would anyone really object to a document pointing out that REST (sans extensions such as mentioned by Mark Baker) might not be the right style for eventing, rm, or high volume TP? What REST could add there is operational visibility - a standard means to ask various systems about a given resource (be it a message/transaction/document). cheers Bill de hÓra -- Technical Architect Propylon http://www.propylon.com
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2004 11:54:58 UTC