On 19/12/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/18/06, Alexander Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No one can solve the problem of people turning their services > > completely off, but how do we make sure that switching from one to > > another is as painless as possible? > > This reminds me of the Web services proponents who claimed "HTTP was > unreliable" because it **reliably** told them that somebody turned a > service off (with a 404 response code, of course).
Sort of like getting a SOAP fault (which you also get if the server isn't available). > > But to answer your question, we make it painless by using an > architectural style, standards, and software best practices which can > accomodate change. I can't claim that any change to an app using a > Web based stack won't result in a broken application, but they're far > more robust than those built atop a Web services stack. Hang on Mark, if someone turns off the server then you don't get a 404, you get nothing at all. With a SOAP client you get a SOAP fault from the client due to non-connection, with REST you get _nothing_ which doesn't fit into the 404 processing. How is that more robust? > > Mark. >
