[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Agreed. If the network definitions are semantically simple,
the communications load is in the resource definitions and
negotiations of the meaning of signs (from a semiotic perspective).
I think it comes down to explaining that network definitions
(verbs for schlepping stuff) are never *meaningful*. It's like
asking your mailman to do your taxes instead of moving the
form to the IRS and bringing the payment back. (We may have some
fun later merging this thread into Pragmatics (not what
Box is talking about but the subfield of linguistics)).
Why Federated instead of Confederated? In other words, if
REST is Federated naming, you are saying it is centrally
administered. I'd say it is Confederated because the
meaningful names are in the packages, not the types of
the envelopes.
len
From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@us.ibm.com]
> But I think the hardest thing to understand about REST isn't the
> semantics of the operations per se, but how exactly to define what the
> resource is so that the operations make sense.
Yes, naming in distributed systems has long been recognized as a a very
important, subtle, and hard problem.
I used to say REST is just federated naming, but nobody understood me.
|
