[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
As I said yesterday, between objectivism and selflessness
is "do the right thing for the right reasons and it usually
turns out alright". It isn't the most secure middle ground
one can imagine and seems to depend as much on luck as
rigor. On the other hand, a balance point is not known
for rigidity; it is known for sensitivity to perturbations.
1. Al makes a good point that packing arguments and names
into URIs and RPC calls look a lot alike above the mapping.
The difference is how one goes about extending the application.
2. The Lovett article http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnexxml/html/xml10162000.asp
makes the point that XML As API works as long as one is willing to
give up features, often features unnecessary for the task at hand.
That is what "coarse grained" means. The fine-grained object API
has a lot of neat stuff, but the cost is hard to maintain code for
little used features.
3. Both point to the context of use as the determinant for choosing.
The "automagic hookup" hype does not account for the exceptions
where the little used feature is useful. It depends on a world
of standard XML vocabularies with the exceptions hammered out.
The URI/HTTP world depends on eliminating choices of verbs and
saying, "if you have exceptions, you have to build them up
from these primitives".
I don't see much difference except in picking who gets to
be vindicated and who gets the pain.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
2 and 3 are useful pluses for protocol success, but I don't think either
inherently reduces the risk of a popular but poorly implemented protocol
creating an enormous mess. On the bright side, more pain MIGHT mean
more people willing to put the time in to fix that pain.
There's got to be a balance point there somewhere...
|
