[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
> Because it isn't just Microsoft. That is the kind
> of argument that steers this away from a technical
> discussion into a bar room brawl. If it were just
> Microsoft, that would be an issue given their
> installation ubiquity, but it isn't. There are
> what, a hundred, WSI-O members? That is a lot
> of ubiks.
100 people can run in the wrong way and I still won't follow them.
>...
>
> Don't turn off your brains. Turn them on long
> enough to admit that SOAP and REST are two
> different architectures, two different information
> ecosystems nesting in the same medium: the Internet.
I think it is incorrect to say that SOAP is an architecture. SOAP is a
syntax that can be adapted to a variety of architectures. The
interoperable variant of SOAP uses an RPC architecture and even most
backers of SOAP agree that this is not where it will end up. They
haven't articulated where it will end up but they are clear that it is
not RPC.
Nevertheless, I have trouble understanding how your article relates to
any of the following documents: a) my original Google article, b) Dave's
rebuttal, c) my counter.
If you've reviewed all three articles do you agree or disagree that 1)
there are substantive technical issues raised 2) Google could have
chosen a better technology for their API and 3) they should now correct
their mistake by *at the least* adding a URI-based mechanism for
retrieving query results?
Paul Prescod
|
