GT2HQ-PY23H-TF8GH-V44YJ-DBKDJ Stefan, Sanjiva (Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.) gave the explanation of my point: > Wait, how do you advocate REST as an implementation technology for >*service* oriented architecture when REST doesn't have the concept of >services but rather has the concept of resources? > >Sanjiva. If object orientation would "exposes database records" only, I thought it did not support business logic. If REST is resource-oriented solution and business logic is not only in utilization of the resources ( and not only in exchange of plain XML documents), then I would not insist on that REST is THE "implementation technology for *service* oriented architecture" but rather one among others, in adequate cases (e.g., for technical services concentrated on resources). - Michael
Stefan Tilkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 24, 2006, at 10:35 PM, Michael Poulin wrote: > I agree with Paul. > > If we can find how much money business makes on its processes and > services vs. how much it makes on its resource utilization, we will > get the picture of the role of ROA in SOA. My uneducated guess is > that portion in profit coming from just resource utilization > (business data) is far from 100%. That is, the rest of SOA does > not need to use REST. Let's be realistic/pragmatic in IT instead > of religious. > Michael, that seems to be based on a misunderstanding - REST does not suggest you expose your persistent entities instead of the business logic. This is like saying object orientation does not support business logic because it exposes database records. REST is not CRUD on entities. Stefan -- Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ > - Michael > > --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
