- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:26:18 -0700
- To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Constrained in the sense that the operation names are constrained to a finite set. Sometimes the terms generic or uniform are used. Uniform is slightly misleading because REST actually defines 4 different aspects of Uniform interface, only 1 of which is the reduced method/operation/verb set. > > Users use the operations in their application as the > abstract methods. However they bind it is, well, how they > bind it. They could bind a "PUT/DELETE" to POST ala Atom, > but probably shouldn't bind GET to a PUT. If you want to > call it REST:GET, that's fine by me. I had made an earlier > suggestion to that effect because of exactly the same concern > you raised. I'm glad we are in agreement about having some > trouble with the name(s), but I think the bigger issue is > whether WSDL 2.0 should provide a constrained interface. > > On that we agree. By the way, "constrained" interface in what sense? > Dave
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 23:27:29 UTC