Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Zapthink on SOA/REST

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:28:05 -0700

Not quite the same -- The central design unit of the naked object pattern is an object, not a resource. A naked object will have getter and setter method for each of its attributes, and it will expose as many other domain-specific methods as the designer deems appropriate. For example, you could have an "order" object, which might expose methods such as addItem, submitOrder, checkOrderStatus, etc.

The fundamental premise of REST is the uniform interface. No such constraint exists for the naked object pattern.

Anne

On 7/14/06, Ashley at Metamaxim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Anne wrote
 
> In a traditional service-oriented approach, a service implements a function that can be performed
> on multiple instances of a resource. You do not have a different service for each resource.
> .e.g, you have a stockQuote service -- you input a stock symbol and it returns
> the stock quote for that stock symbol. You don't define a separate service for each stock symbol.
> The latter would be a resource oriented approach -- and it makes much more sense to use a uniform
> interface( i.e., REST) when using a resource-oriented approach.

The more I hear about the REST paradigm, the more I think it is very similar to that proposed by the advocates of "Naked Objects" ( http://www.nakedobjects.org/  ). Although Naked Objects is concerned with the interface presented to humans (rather than a service interface presented to other systems) their object-based interface seems very similar to the REST resource-based interface.
 
Is anybody else on this list familiar with Naked Objects and, if so, do you agree with the similarity I suggest?
 
Rgds
Ashley


__._,_.___


SPONSORED LINKS
Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job
Soa Service-oriented architecture

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to