W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Issue 169: Propose http method in the operation interface to simplify http binding.

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:11:56 -0700
Message-Id: <2304E284-CB8A-11D8-B7F4-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>

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.  
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:42 UTC