Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Brennan wrote:
> No, I am not muddying anything. You are the one taking terms with specific
> meanings within one abstract model that is applicable to one domain and
> proclaiming it to be a universal truth applicable to all domains.
How did I do that?
> ... The OSI
> model and REST does not help design business logic in a CRM system, or a SFA
> system, or a system managing clinical trial data, or a hotel reservation
> system, all things that I have worked on in my career.
I didn't claim that it did! I really don't know what you are responding
to so I don't know how to correct the miscommunication. One minute we
were talking about *protocols* and the next you're claiming that I told
you that business logic is irrelevant!
> And by the way, if you really want to insist that the OSI model has somehow
> laid some exclusive claim on the words "application" or "protocol", I
> suggest you look those terms up in the dictionary.
I've never said that OSI defined the word application. I said it defined
the term "application protocol." I'm just trying to use the standard
terminology in the area. XML defines the term application in that domain
it doesn't mean that XML people are claiming that business logic is
> 5. Computer Science. A standard procedure for regulating data transmission
> between computers.
> I count 6 definitions, there.
Only one is from computer science.
> > > But certainly it is ridiculous to maintain that that data
> > is meaningless and
> > > has no relevance to the interpretation of the message.
> > Who said either thing?
> You and Mark did when you insisted that the only "intent" in the message is
> POST. As far as the application that actually processes the order, POST has
> nothing to do with the intent. And it is terribly narrow-minded and arrogant
> to lecture the developer who has to implement that application that the only
> application, here, is HTTP and the logic he had to implement is just an HTTP
I've never said that. I used the term application protocol which is
STANDARD TERMINOLOGY among people discussing networking. If you're going
to take standard terminology as an attack on your competence then we
aren't going to make progress in this discussion.
> Of course not, and I have never contended otherwise. You are the one
> contending that when I implement an SFA system, or a CRM system, or a hotel
> reservation system, that all of the business logic I am writing needs no
> architectural model other than that which tells me that everything I am
> writing is just an extension of one thin layer in the OSI model of a
> protocol stack. How terribly arrogant and narrow-minded, Paul.
I've never seen a technical discussion go so bad, so fast.
Once again, I'm trying to use meaningful terminology, not promote an
ideology of what is important and what isn't. There are people who spend
their whole live working on wonderfully amazing extensions to the Apache
server, or to the Windows shell or the Linux Kernel. In some cases the
extension is larger than the original. They do not consider the term
derogatory. It is technical. If you start with something and add on to
it such that the spirit of the original is still strongly present then
you are extending. That isn't a statement of the *value* of the
extension. It is a *technical term*. I'm trying to sell technology, not
Precise terminology is essential for communication about technology. My
experience is that most people do not use precise terminology when it
comes to things relating to protocols. This causes a great deal of
confusion and miscommunication. Therefore I will try to use the
terminology correctly as I understand it and I apologize in advance if
that insults you.