Jan Algermissen wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
>> This is my point, not that REST is rubbish or SOAP rocks, but that the
>> implementation of the execution context is of NO VALUE at all to the
>> business,
>
> Well (for example), implementing a system based on RPC style SOAP,
> deploying it and discovering that the inability to cache all those
> zillions of data-getting calls turns out to be prohobitive (which is
> a real life story) vs. implementing it using e.g. REST suggests that
> architecture *does* have an effect that can be felt in the pockets of
> the share holders - eh?
>
Okay so now I'm confused because using RPC/SOAP doesn't preclude me from
doing caching per se. Further, perhaps the design approach was just
wrong if it was doing so many roundtrips? Couldn't I end up doing too
many roundtrips with a REST architecture as well?
I'm just wondering if the real problem was that the people who built the
RPC/SOAP version weren't that savvy in respect of network app design
whilst the next bunch were that much smarter and coincidentally chose to
use http and REST?
Regardless, can you point me at a reference for this real-life story?
Always ready to learn more!
Cheers,
Dan.
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/
