Jan Algermissen wrote: > > On Monday, January 29, 2007, at 05:18PM, "Dan Creswell" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Just to expose my thinking a little more: >> >> I don't buy into styles and the associated things as particularly >> valuable. Bruce Lee said something like: >> >> "My style is no style" > > Weeeee....see that comic pages picturing Roy vs. Bruce in that "REST > against the Null-Style" fight? > > So nice this feels - I doubt there is any value in this. It is like
Guess you didn't get the point...........Dismissing something with or without humour helps me not at all. In fact it just makes me think you'd rather not answer the question. No value in it? - hmmm, well in fighting terms it seems that this flexible approach has proven itself again and again over fixed approaches. > saying "I don't buy into Programming Patterns, my style is no style". > The stuff you throw together might work but this approach decreases > maintainability (one of the goals for the kinds of systems SOA is > aimed at). > Yep you definitely didn't get it - I said explicitly that I'll use what works and that I want patterns etc. What I don't buy into is the classification you seem to insist on. And if you are going to make the statement about it decreasing maintainability please explain that in concrete terms and then explain how REST makes it any better. >> Consequently, classification for me is only of so much use. > > What about the people that deal with the stuff after you? We should > not forget here that the goal in the context of enterprise IT is not > to get something to work, but to buid systems that are simple, > scalable, evolvable and extensible. And the question is, what can SOA > guarantee towards that end. > C'mon - documenting, explaining and communicating architecture and principles are how we pass this stuff on. Are you seriously suggesting that if I use REST all over, that's sufficient information and nothing else matters? If you aren't, please state how all those REST constraints help. > Jan > Dan.
