RE: [xml-dev] Transformative Programming: Flow-based, functional,and mor

["Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>]

Hi Simon,

> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com] 
> Sent: October 16, 2013 14:39
> 
> On 10/16/13 2:11 PM, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
> >   > And with that the ability to debug in the small, to have edges 
> > that are very strict but middle pieces that are very 
> flexable ... but 
> > still defined interfaces.
> >
> > I've said this before here, so I don't want to go too deep 
> with this 
> > now, but REST standardizes the interface.  If XML defined common 
> > access to the interface (aka hypermedia affordances)
> >
> > (across *all* of XML, not just XML with namespaces), the "small 
> > pieces, loosely joined" could be XML.
> 
> I reflected a little bit on REST in the piece:
> 
> "I've also pondered what role REST may play in these 
> conversations. The PUT and DELETE methods are, of course, all 
> about side-effects, and not so much about flow. I don't yet 
> have a good answer here."

Yes, I saw that.  The uniform interface of HTTP and hypermedia 
are inextricably bound by REST / the Web.  

And I'm also not sure what the relation to pipeline / flow based programming
is, but I sense there is a point in common, specifically around
the edges/interfaces between things.  Before you get to the interface,
however, you have XML in the way.  I'm just trying to think out
how XML wouldn't be in the way, but could facilitate access to the
interface.


> 
> My general sense is that XML+REST is wonderful stuff, but 
> more likely an entry (or exit) point than the communications 
> method used throughout this kind of flow.  I would be happy 
> if REST - especially with a hypermedia approach - would be 
> sufficient, but it doesn't quite feel like a neat fit with a 
> pipeline-centric model.
> 
> I'm sure it could be made to work, but I'm not sure it should 
> be made to work.
> 
> I also have mixed feelings about hypermedia affordances *in* 
> XML. Mostly I'm wary because too many hypermedia 
> conversations seem to reach a point where everyone thinks 
> they agree about what things mean and what things do, and 
> then realize that the agreement isn't that robust.

Yes, I agree.  We tend to over think things, I suppose.

> 
> Roughly, I like the idea, but don't trust myself for liking it.

I appreciate that.    There are some old battle scars showing there, I think :-).

> 
> (I should note that hypermedia conversations were another 
> piece contributing to my sense that this model is coming 
> together for real this time, just not in as direct a way.)

It is good to have that conversation in XML circles too.

Regards,
Peter