[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > Rich says: "I'm legally disallowed
> > from having my Web gateway understand the semantics of the information
> > it is dealing with."
>
> I never said there HAD to be a web gateway. I'd just like to be able to
> send it operations where parts of the data are encrypted. REST doesn't
> seem to be able to handle that.
Let's step back. What are you looking for with REST? If we're doing a
bullet point feature comparison with SOAP or something and you want to
say that REST doesn't support something then I'll go with Mark Baker and
suggest you use the "tunnel" feature (which I would say, is from a REST
point of view mostly useless). If you want the advantages of REST *above
and beyond* those offered by SOAP then I would suggest you use SSL
rather than tunnel.
When people ask if REST can do X or Y I presume they mean whether REST's
unique advantages are compatible with X or Y. I think that the answer
with respect to tunnelling is "no". The more information you reveal to
your HTTP server (whether standalone, embedded, inside the firewall or
in the DMZ) and CGI/Servlet, the more it can help you (just like an XSLT
engine, or XML Schema validator, or whatever else).
But if we're going to drill deeper maybe we should move it to
rest-discuss. I thought that my first answer was straightforward but
we're still discussing it so I guess not.
--
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/
|
