On Sep 19, 2005, at 4:10 PM, David Forslund wrote: > OK. I agree that http is defined as an application protocol and has > been extended from its original position > as a hypertext protocol.
I am not sure at what point the HTTP authors started to see HTTP as REST interprets it today, but I think it was pretty early if not right from the beginning. See [1] for example > The fact that it is stateless is viewed both > as a strength and weakness. Since > may systems require state, I do not think that any system requires client-server interactions to be stateful. What kind of state do you have in mind? If you need state in HTTP, create a resource to hold that state. > one must figure out how to add state to a > stateless protocol when it is needed. > My point is that it possible to run CORBA over HTTP, if one likes, so > the boundary here is quite loose. > The application semantics of http are quite weak and one needs to > include actual "operation" semantics > in the http payload if one is to use it in a real SOA application, > which > needs to know what to do with data > that is coming over the "protocol". Hmm...and the question is: What is a *real* SOA application? IIRC nobody has yet presented a use case that cannot be handled with REST. What's your's given that you say that the "application semantics of http are quite weak"? > Jan [1] http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/9703-web-apps-essay.html > Dave > Jan Algermissen wrote: > > >> >> On Sep 18, 2005, at 2:42 AM, David Forslund wrote: >> >> >>>> Application protocols define application semantics. They are not >>>> "protocols" in the same sense of the word used in systems like >>>> CORBA, >>>> DCOM, RMI, Jini, etc.. IMO, that's the root cause of the >>>> misunderstanding. If these things had been called "locotorps", >>>> this >>>> confusion wouldn't exist; "protocol independence" would be a good >>>> idea, since protocols just move bits around. But "locotorp >>>> independence" would be silly, because everybody knows that >>>> locotorps >>>> define the application semantics, and how can an applications be >>>> independent of application semantics?! 8-) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yes. Using "protocol" for how bits on the wire are organization and >>> application semantics is >>> a bad idea. http is a protocol. >>> >> >> No, HTTP is defining application semantics. It is an application >> protocol and not >> a 'bits on the wire' transport protocol. >> >> Jan >> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> ___ >> _______________ >> Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer >> http://jalgermissen.com >> Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT' >> http://www.tugboat.de >> >> >> > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- > ~--> > Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the > Sweet Life. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/NhFolB/TM > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ~-> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ _______________ Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer http://jalgermissen.com Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT' http://www.tugboat.de ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
