- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:11:56 -0700
- To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Jul 1, 2004, at 10:34 AM, Amelia A Lewis wrote: > Although this may cause the mob to rise up and lynch me, I also fail > to be > convinced that REST is applicable outside the narrow scope of HTTP. > HTTP > was, of course, designed (at least in part) around those concepts. > Possibly Atom is, too. No other protocol, so far as I know, is, and > the > mappings of REST to those protocols are hugely less than convincing. Differentiate RESTful underlying protocols from RESTful application design. Just because some protocols don't support RPC (SMTP, anyone?), you can still map RPC onto them; why is this different? > Under that circumstance, REST-specific attributes/properties belong in > HTTP (or HTTP-based) bindings (or perhaps someone wants to create a > generic "REST" binding?). I disagree profoundly; it's not binding information; it's inherent in the design of the interface itself. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 14:11:59 UTC