On 2/7/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it was CLOUD oriented architecture then of course Grady would be all in > favour :) To be fair if he is saying that _technical_ SOA is snake oil then > I'm with him. The WS-* is "complex" v "simple" REST however misses the point > that there is no REST-* yet so the comparison is fatuous,
Sure there is. There's a rich and mature set of specifications which address common problems with the Web, and otherwise add features to it. What do you need specifically? That's not to say there aren't things missing, just that there's a lot more there than you think. > its hard to see how IBM and MSFTs "REST" implementations will be any better > at interacting out of the box than their WS equivalents, hand coding > everything isn't interoperability. What does the means by which code is produced have to do with interoperability? What affects interoperability is well-defined message semantics, and REST is self-descriptive so you can't do any better than that (as the size of the Web demonstrates). Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
