[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:54:19AM -0400, Mike Champion wrote:
> So, we can study and give honor to the pioneering thoughts
> expressed in the TimBL and Fielding documents without accepting
> that anything violating their constraints is not part of
> the "Web architecture". Let's talk about the web as it is,
> and learn from what works, whether or not the reality was
> what was envisioned by the pioneers.
That's what REST is, one person's *description* of the architecture of
the Web, not a *prescription* of it. As Roy has suggested, the only
authority on Web architecture, is the Web itself;
"As an illustration, consider what happens to a building if its blueprints and design plans are burned. Does the building immediately collapse? No, since the properties by which the walls sustain the weight of the roof remain intact. An architecture has, by design, a set of properties that allow it to meet or exceed the system requirements. Ignorance of those properties may lead to later changes which violate the architecture, just as the replacement of a load-bearing wall with a large window frame may violate the structural stability of a building. Thus, instead of rationale, our definition of software architecture includes architectural properties. Rationale explicates those properties, and lack of rationale may result in gradual decay or degradation of the architecture over time, but the rationale itself is not part of the architecture."
-- http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/software_arch.htm#sec_1_2
MB
--
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
|
