- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:13:01 -0500
- To: Walden Mathews <walden@eqwality.com>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Hey Walden, On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 06:55:48PM -0500, Walden Mathews wrote: > That is certainly confusing, but the underlying concepts are not > that clear either, and there's a bigger problem there, I think, in terms > of understanding scaleability tradeoffs. > > Here's a stateful interaction: > > C: How much is a ticket from NYC to Boston on the 20th? > S: $50. > C: How much is it round trip? > > The "stateless server" principle says that for the server to be able > to answer the client's second question, it has to sacrifice some > ability to service larger numbers of clients. > > However, if instead of the above, the client posts an incomplete > order for a ticket, the server creates a resource > from that, and the client can then complete the order via reference > to that resource, you technically have a "stateless interaction", No, you wouldn't, because as you say, the second message would contain a reference to the resource, but the semantics of that message - if it's to provide the same expectation as the second message above - would be a function of the state of that resource. Who said "State is hell"[1]? Easy as pie. 8-) [1] http://www.artima.com/intv/distrib4.html Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:10:57 UTC