On May 21, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Mike Glendinning wrote:
> but I still think that REST would benefit from a simple but
> machine-processable way of defining exactly what resource
> representations will be exchanged ("types" and "messages") for each
> of the "operations" allowed (GET, POST, DELETE, PUT) on a particular
> resource identifier ("service").
But this would introduce a kind of coupling REST deliberately chose
to *avoid* therby enabeling the service to evolve and especially to
change the exact representations it sends. Surely this demands for
client implementations that can handle this scenario but that is
after all the cost of the better evolvability.
Or am I missing your point?
Jan
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
