Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Rest and Naked Objects (was Zapthink on SOA/REST)

[Ashley at Metamaxim]

Anne wrote   > Not quite the same -- The central design unit of the naked object > pattern is an object, not a resource.   In all the REST examples discussed in the debate going on in this forum, the resources (lightbulbs, bank accounts, stocks, etc) could, I think, be equally well thought of as objects. This is the similarity I was getting at.   Obviously the implementation of "objects" and "resources" is different, but I am trying to abstract from the implementation. If you do this abstraction, is there any difference?   > 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.   Agreed. This is certainly a difference between REST and Naked Objects. Rgds Ashley __._,_.___ 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. __,_._,___