[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 16:33, Michael Champion wrote:
> > Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Did Documents Win? No. Objects Just Couldn't
> GetTheir Act Together.
> > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:41:43 -0600
> > From: len.bullard@intergraph.com
> > 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)).
> >
> I think that answers the original question - to the extent that we are
> converging on something like a Postal Service architecture, documents
> won -- the contents of an envelope are what matter (are meaningful),
> not the delivery mechanism. That means that neither side in the
> original REST vs SOAP debate "won":
> - Protocol neutrality is important - you don't really care whether the
> envelope came by plane or dogsled, UPS or USPS; it's just a cost vs
> quality of service issue. (score one for the "HTTP is just a transport
> layer" crowd)
> - A document can be just a document, a resource representation, a
> service request, a service fufillment, or whatever. (Take one away
> from the original SOAP/RPC style, score one for either REST or
> SOAP/document-literal style)
I agree with these points, but you still have to deal with envelope
context issues (revisiting the enveloping problem). When you blur the
lines between document, protocol and transport, it's always dangerous.
When the envelope can't be discarded from the message, it's not really
an envelope anymore, and you need another envelope (at least
conceptually).
***************************************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
***************************************************************************************************
|
