Hi,
On 12/14/06, Dan Creswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OO is about calling methods and not knowing how they are implemented
> underneath.
It's *meant* to hide implementation details. Is this true, though, in
your opinion? (My reply to SteveJ goes into more detail, though) It
may solve one problem but introduces abstractivitis, a disease I find
far more disturbing, IMHO.
> Further methods on an interface don't have to be synchronous/blocking -
> you can model callbacks, queues etc if you choose to do so.
Event models, declarative patterns, etc, so yeah, sure. Everything
WS-* can do, REST can do to. Everything REST can, WS-* can do to. This
really isn't about who can do it, but who can do it with less amount
of pain, I think.
> "Technology that's been around for yonks" - can you be more specific
> about what technology you're referring to? Web servers? Databases?
> Something else?
UNIX pipes, HTTP, HTML, all stuff that's been around a long time
before WS-* entered the loop, all stuff that's proven, and technology
that - at least in my opinion - adhores to the principles of
simplicity, modularity, and more of both UNIX and Web technology
principles.
> For me service orientation is not about technology so I don't understand
> your statement about "technology is specifically much much larger".
I've never stated that SOA (which I've talked quite little about, come
to think about it) is about technology, so I'm a bit puzzled to what
you're saying here, but SteveJ said the same thing, so maybe it is my
communication that fails. SOA isn't about technology; it's about
service orientation, and using that as a model for architecture. What
I *am* saying is that if you're doing WS-*, you're at least in part -
large or small, right or wrong - doing service orientation, but I
would say this about ROA as well. In fact, I'm not sure I even
understand (well, "agree with") the distinction. But when we talk
about REST we're talking about technology that isn't focused just on
service orientation; WS-* is designed around services (as in web
services) so all the technology is there to try to address service
model and pipeline problems. REST has been solving service orientation
*and* very different problems, and as such has greater scope to the
amount of people who knows about it (even though admitedly most don't
know they know it :) and the problems it sets out to solve. And this,
to me, is very assuring as a proven technology, as opposed to a stack
that has spent 10 years getting to where the web was 10 years ago.
IMHO, of course. :)
Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
- Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
