On 17.01.2007, at 23:08, Gregg Wonderly wrote:

> Mark Baker wrote:
>> On 1/17/07, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:gergg% 
>> 40cox.net>> wrote:
>>> I think it should be fairly obvious that "slow" on a network is  
>>> almost always
>>> related to "latency" of transfer/transport between systems. There  
>>> are a couple
>>> of issues to consider, for me. One is connection setup time for a
>>> transfer/transport operation. Many HTTP based systems will  
>>> experience this
>>> latency on every remote operation unless some very specific  
>>> features of HTTP are
>>> configured/available.
>>
>> That's no longer the case; persistent connections are pervasively
>> supported and used and have been for many years.
>
> The last time that I monitored the exchange of a web document  
> retrieved from
> java code invoking;
>
>       URL url = ...
>       InputStream data = url.openStream();
>
> There was no use of persistent connections.  An application would  
> have to
> perform some very specific actions, as I said to make this work.

You shouldn't blame the architectural style for a bad implementation  
of the HTTP connector.

>
> REST can transport mobile code.  It doesn't use it.  That mobile  
> code doesn't
> allow the transport layer or the interface to "change".

Why would you want to change the transport layer? And sure, the  
interface in a REST conforming system cannot change (must not  
change). But mobile code affects an applications hypermedia engine,  
so the effect is conceptually the same.

> One might use REST/HTTP
> to load a webpage with an applet or javascript which uses NO HTTP  
> to talk to the
> server.  But, I don't consider that a "feature of REST"

No, of course not....it would be against REST principles to have  
conversations that don't use the uniform interface (HTTP in this case).

Jan

> as much as a "feature of
> Java" or a "feature of javascript" (the feature is the ability to vary
> transport/transfer techonology based on need).
>
> Gregg Wonderly
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Reply via email to