So, Mark, are you in effect asserting that REST as a disruptive technology could cause, shall we say, career and economic problems for some of the less agile members of the WS-* community, or am I reading far too much into this? My personal opinion is that you as an individual have done much to bring REST's virtues to the attention of the world; however as I have alluded before, perhaps it needs more structure and resources to really take off.
Gervas --- In [email protected], "Mark Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/9/06, Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Writing as a neutral non-technical observer, I have to state that your points here do resonate, Sanjiva. Certain people in this Group obviously know a lot about REST and equally obviously are keen devotees of the approach. However when someone as evidently experienced and bright as Steven has such difficulty in clarifying basic issues, it does give the impression that the RESTafarians still have a bit of work to do in at least explaining the use of REST in terms that are as clear and simple as the claimed nature of REST. > > It's really hard. Take my latest InfoQ article about separation of > concerns, for example (motivated by the lengthy "pizza order" > discussions we had here months ago, in fact); > > http://www.infoq.com/articles/separation-of-concerns > > That explains, in the simplest possible terms I could (which *are* > pretty darn simple, IMO), why REST services are essentially Web > services + loose coupling resulting from *actually* separating > interface from implementation. But what has the response been? From > Web services proponents at least, dismissive. They don't even bother > to try to explain *why* I'm wrong; they bring up issues which have > nothing at all to do with the conclusion of the article or the method > by which it came to that conclusion. > > These are smart folk too. Some of them, brilliant. I can only > conclude that they simply aren't trying, and that they dismiss my > arguments out of hand. I suspect this is because the implications of > me being right are pretty difficult to absorb. > > >There is obviously far more vendor support for WS-*, and this could > arguably be explained in partly politico-commercial terms, but is this > widespread support entirely without technical merit?? > > You really want me to answer that one? 8-) > > Mark. >
