RE: [service-orientated-architecture] RESTful lightbulb

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:45:28 -0700

Title: Message
Mark, you are talking about the operations GET, PUT, POST, DELETE.
 
Steve is referring to operations as capabilities.
 
In terms of the lightbulb example, he is referring to 'TurnOn' whilst you are referring to PUT(<state="on"/>).
 
Like Steve, I'm still unconvinced your scheme has any major advantage, whereas I can see its drawbacks, as previously indicated.
 
Harm.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
Sent: mardi 11 juillet 2006 00:03
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] RESTful lightbulb

On 7/10/06, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's difficult to quantify, of course. It depends a lot on the data
> > itself. As a low watermark though, we know;
> >
> > work(Web services) = work( solving interface problem) + work ( solving
> > data problem )
> > work(Web) = work( solving data problem )
>
> Do we? I certainly don't. You still have to define the operational
> interface, even though it is a document post rather than a defined
> interface document. If you don't define the operations available to
> consumers then THEY WON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM.

Steve - it is *axiomatic* in REST that all services expose the same
"operational interface", so yes, we do know that.

http://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_5

Mark.

__._,_.___

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to