[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Miles Sabin wrote:
>
> Paul Prescod wrote,
> > HTTP can of course be used to tunnel (POST: don't ask, don't tell).
> > But REST is an integration architecture: tunnelling of proprietary
> > protocols is precisely what it is designed to *replace*.
>
> Sure, but here there's a significant cost: if you want to use REST/HTTP
> you'd have to expand the scope of the secure endpoint to include the
> HTTP server. And that means that you have a much bigger chunk of
> software that'd need to pass the relevant certification criteria ...
> and that could be *very* time-consuming and expensive (if, indeed, it's
> possible at all in any realistic sense).
No doubt. REST isn't for anything. If you don't care about widespread
interoperability and integration then I would't say it has any benefit
for you. There are tons of ad hoc ways to tunnel proprietary data
through the Internet. I don't see think you would need either a
"standard" or an "architecture" for that. You've already decided on your
architecture and you've already decided to use a proprietary application
protocol. What value could REST (as opposed to HTTP) add?
--
Come discuss XML and REST web services at:
Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com
Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
|
