RE: Section 1.6 and REST - Can we make this more clear and useful ?

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:bill.dehora@propylon.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:55 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: Re: Section 1.6 and REST - Can we make this more 
> clear and useful?
> 
> 
> 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? 

I think that's a good idea.  I agree that I used "complexity" as a shorthand
term for all sorts of stuff such as that you mention.  Basically, SOAP's
value proposition comes from the SOAP-based specs that provide eventing,
reliable messaging, transactions, orchestration, authorization, encryption,
digital signatures ..... You might have a "complex" application that doesn't
need these things but for which straight XML-over-REST is quite appropriate.
Once again, concrete examples, preferably with credible case studies, are
solicited.

> 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).

Well, XML iteself also provides "operational visibility" if you are using
the term as I understand it after months of discussion with Mark B.  That
is, one could use the XPath (or a similar) standard to peek inside
message/transactions/documents whether or not they are being used in a
RESTful manner or not.

Received on Saturday, 24 January 2004 22:42:51 UTC