Jan: Where are all the standardized APIs????
Steve: >You mean like the industry vertical ones? There are quite a few out >there these days. Likely that I missed these; I had no idea they existed. Can you point me to two or three? That would indeed shift the balance a bit. Jan And part of the objective of WS-* isn't to create >single interfaces across the world, its to enable businesses to >collaborate around what they want which means establishing interfaces >for just those interactions. > >If REST restricted its vision, as I've understood what you have >claimed for it, to be more targetted and less grand and established >that media types are between participants rather than global then it >would sound more sensible to me. > > >> >> You need to do the same standardization effort for both styles and I claim >> that defining a media type is a lot easier than defining an API. > >But that isn't a claim backed up by experience of distributed systems >which has been successful via APIs but you are saying the new way >_could_ be easier but don't have the proof point. You might be right, >but I need data to back that opinion up. > >> >> (The design space is smaller, less things to decide). > >An ontology for everything is not a small space. > >> >> Really, I am totally not getting your point. Can you explain? > >You talk of standardized MIME types, a theoretical thing, being the >"solution", I doubt that we will get to a complete ontology of MIME >types that is standardised across the globe and therefore REST >currently doesn't have a solution beyond partner to partner >negotation, thus meaning that clients are bound to a specific server >implementation as that has the MIME types it understands. > >WS-* is further along in the standardisation of industry verticals and >this is liable to accelerate in the next 12 months. I'm just not >seeing the business case for them re-doing the effort for REST. > > > >> >> Jan >> > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
