[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 10:54, Mike Champion wrote:
> >So, Google simply gave an answer based on sound marketing principles. The
> >main market is using procedural tools. This has noting to do with XML and we
> >would be lured to think the contrary.
>
> Right! This helps crystallize another issue that has been bugging me: is there
> any intrinsic reason why "functional" or "REST-like" (I'm not sure they're the
> same, but that's another issue) development can't be done in a VB-friendly way?
> I'm bewildered by this stuff partly because Microsoft, Macromedia, have
> made lots of progress in the last 5 years making web PAGE development accessible
> to non-nerds, and it seemed logical that this technology could be leveraged
> to make RESTful web SERVICE development accessible to non-nerds. Or maybe the
> people who understand "procedural" aspects of website development have been
> behind the scenes all along, and gravitate toward SOAP-RPC because it simply
> eliminates all the HTML/HTTP stuff between the producer and consumer of
> a web page/service?
I agree that there's no intrinsic barrier to REST working with component
frameworks. The problem I see is choosing where to put something that
looks like an API. Should that be on the server, or in the client, as
access to a messaging system?
I have no problem with developers thinking in components, but don't
really want their extra junk (and hideous unqualified namespace
practice) in my XML.
In general, I think you're on the right track here. Unfortunately, I
think a lot of vendors are on the other track, have been for a while,
and show few signs of crossing over.
I don't really know what to do about that - if we do in fact wind up
with "one degree of separation", a lot of programmers are going to be
stuck doing ugly work for a long time.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
