RE: Protocol independence

> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:00:22 -0500, Mark Baker 
> <mbaker@idokorro.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > The choice to use GET vs POST to retrieve stuff is most
> > definitely an architectural decision, because the properties of
> > the architecture depend on that choice.  If you choose to use GET
> > to retrieve data, your system demonstrates greater visibility than
> > if you were to use POST.  That's why the TAG says stuff like;
> >
> > "Safe operations (read, query, view, ask, lookup, etc.) on HTTP
> > resources SHOULD be implemented using GET"
> > -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7
> >
> > Now *that's* architectural guidance! 8-)
> 
> Well, I think it's best practice guidance.  (note the SHOULD 
> as opposed to 
> MUST). I agree that SOAP 1.2 is better off having a 
> mechanism so as to 
> give the binding a hint that if the operation requested is 
> "safe" so that 
> the appropriate message transport mechanism-level operation 
> is requested.  
> I guess we will continue to disagree because you see these as 
> fundamental 
> architectural principles, and I see them as implementation 
> optimizations 
> and best practice guidelines.

Mike, I thought we already agreed that REST had improved visibility over
SOA?  Dave Orchard agreed with Roy and I, at least.  I don't understand
how you can say that using GET vs. POST is not a choice with
architectural
implications if you agree with that.

> Maybe that makes me a Reformed RESTifarian, and you and Orthodox 
> RESTifarian :-)
> 
> [See 
http://www.rdfrost.com/Reference/Religion/Heretic_Scum.html  -- maybe 
I'm a Reformed RESTifarian Reformation of SOAP 1.2 and you're a Reformed

RESTifarian Reformation of Fielding's Thesis :-) :-) ]

What, no Crusades analogy?! 8-)

MB

Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 10:18:13 UTC