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

Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:25:17 -0700

Title: Message
Gervas,
 
Maybe the term is a bit harsh, but it translates my disappointment with the fact that after a discussion with 150+ messages on the subject of the lightbulb, somebody still comes up with an off-target concept. I could have said "I'm not quite sure I'd put it that way", which is how it would have been formulated in the British parliament and which sounds more polite but is sometimes more agressive. I think on a list like this, direct statements are preferrable to convoluted expressions of the political style. But in any case this doesn't imply anything personal.
 
Harm.
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gervas Douglas
Sent: vendredi 14 juillet 2006 12:15
To: [email protected]
Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Zapthink on SOA/REST

Harm,

I know that English is not your first language, but pointing out the
deficiencies in someone else's statement by baldly stating it is rubbish is considered very direct and personal, whether it is true or not (and I am not the person to adjudicate on that latter point in this instance!). It is however totally excusable, if sometimes a little unwise to address a flic or douanier in such a manner. When talking to a politician it is usually true as well as being almost always excusable:)

Gervas

--- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Harm Smit"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Jan Algermissen
> Sent: jeudi 13 juillet 2006 23:23
> To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Zapthink on SOA/REST
>
>
> .
>
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:38 PM, Ron Schmelzer wrote:
>
> > In Web Services, the behavior is explicit because it's defined as
> > such in a contract. In REST, the behavior is implicit because no
> > contract defines what happens when XML is submitted or received as
> > part of a PUT, GET, POST, or DELETE operation.
>
> That's not true, HTTP is the contract that defines what happens.
>
> Nope. It's only part of the contract, see below.
>
> Could it be that you (and others here) overlook the fact that the
> HTTP methods are being invoked ON A RESOURCE and not just on a
> server. The choice of resource, the method and the message type do
> make pretty clear what is happening.
>
> IOW, why do you consider
>
> lightbulb10.PUT( ON )
>
> to be less explicit than
>
> service.turnOn( lightbulb10 )
>
> The latter is rubbish. It should read: lightbulb10.turnOn()
> Each lightbulb is an independent, autonomous service provider.
>
> Please keep in mind that the message ON in this case must be of a
> message type both parties understand, it is not just the string "ON".
>
> That's exactly where the difference is.
>
> Jan
> _,_._,___
>

__._,_.___


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

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to