Not yet, as they aren't being used by businesses. I'm now trying to learn how to get the spreadsheets thing linked with my Carbon Calculator thing, and its quite nice... but then so were the WS-* interfaces I've used.
On 02/06/07, Stefan Tilkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Google GData (and the associated calendar, spreadsheet, blogging, > notebook etc.) APIs are very RESTful (and built on top of Atom and > APP, the Atom Publishing Protocol); I don't know whether they fall > under your B2B definition. I expect more and more Atom/APP-inspired > and Atom/APP-based APIs to follow. > > Stefan > -- > Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ > > On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:36 PM, ash galal wrote: > > > > > This is a great comment. > > My question: Does REST fits in all kinds of interactions, > > specifically B2B interaction? > > If the answer is "Yes" then please point us to an example of such > > implementations. > > What I found out that most of REST implementation is just POX/HTTP > > and violate the REST principles. (Amzon is an example) > > If the answer is "No" then such articles about REST might imply to > > the reader that REST fits all kind of interactions. Which, in my > > opinion, it does not fit B2B. > > Thank you > > Ash Galal > > Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me reiterate. REST is about the way you design/implement a > > capability (i.e., a service). If you abide by the REST constraints, > > your service will exhibit a number of desirable characteristics, such > > as simplicity, scalability, performance, reliability, evolvability, > > maintainability, visibility, and portability. If you expose your > > RESTful resources using pervasive protocols, such as HTTP, then they > > are also extremely accessible. > > > > Note that all of these desirable characteristics support > > non-functional requirements. Business people don't necessarily care > > about non-functional requirements, but they still provide value to the > > business. > > > > I also want to point out the REST does not preclude the use of SOAP. > > You lose some of the power of the deployed HTTP infrastructure is you > > use SOAP headers rather than HTTP headers to convey infrastructure > > information, but nonetheless, SOAP over HTTP can be RESTful. (The > > debate between REST and WS-* is like comparing apples and oranges.) > > > > Anne > > > > On 6/1/07, Steve Jones wrote: > > > Out of interest what is the view around Security, Reliability and > > the > > > other important "enterprise" qualities that don't current exist > > in the > > > REST world? > > > > > > I completely agree that vendors will be starting to have "REST" > > > tooling in their IDEs (this year I'd say) , mainly because it isn't > > > hard and adds yet another "tick" into the boxes and keeps certain > > > sections of the developer community happy. My question though is to > > > what are the actual BUSINESS benefits of doing REST v WS (i.e. in > > > having two tracks) and I've yet to see a single article looking at > > > whether REST (or WS) actually progress us towards business goals. > > > > > > Its really not suprising that the vendors want to do this as what is > > > the difficulty for them? None whatsoever, and indeed its gives them > > > the opportunity to resell the old stuff with a slightly different > > > interface. How does this progress us towards the business goals? Not > > > at all as it is just a revision at the current level of > > operation, in > > > fact its BELOW that current level as it doesn't include the > > security, > > > reliability and addressing elements that WS-* has already addressed. > > > > > > In my simple world we are still arguing about the moving parts of IT > > > and not really progressing the business agenda. > > > > > > On 01/06/07, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > > You know, it's interesting. Pete Lacey, the most vocal pro-REST > > > > advocate on my team thought that my presentation was much too > > > > conservative, and I made it sound like REST was much too > > challenging > > > > for most organizations to tackle at this point. (True > > assessment.) He > > > > wants me to advise our clients to immediately desist from using > > WS-* > > > > except when requirements specifically call for it. (Not gonna > > happen > > > > anytime soon.) But what was reported in the press and has been > > bandied > > > > about in the blogosphere is that I predicted that REST would > > trounce > > > > WS-*. (False assessment.) > > > > > > > > What I did predict is that major vendors would start to deliver > > within > > > > the next 2-3 years frameworks in their tools and platforms that > > > > assisted developers in creating RESTful services, and at that > > point > > > > REST would become more palatable for the "early adopter" > > enterprise > > > > developer. It will take about 5 years for REST to cross the > > chasm and > > > > be adopted by the "early majority". But that doesn't mean that I'm > > > > predicting the imminent demise of WS-*. I agree with Todd that > > there's > > > > room for both noun-oriented systems and verb-oriented systems. > > > > > > > > I disagree that REST resources can't be "services", though. > > From my > > > > perspective, SOA encompasses many different types of services, > > > > including method-oriented, resource-oriented, event-driven, > > > > workflow-driven, and goal-driven services. Just as I rejected the > > > > whole concept of "SOA 2.0" being a new combination of SOA and > > EDA, I > > > > also reject the idea that ROA is somehow incompatible with SOA. > > (No > > > > doubt now someone is going to start promoting "SOA 3.0" as the > > evolved > > > > SOA that includes SOA + EDA + ROA. Please NO! The original > > concepts of > > > > SOA have always encompassed all types of services.) > > > > > > > > REST can be service oriented. A RESTful resource still exposes an > > > > interface, but the interface is uniform. REST adds constraints > > to SOA, > > > > and in the process imparts a number of desirable properties to the > > > > services that conform to the constraints. REST is an architectural > > > > style for implementing services. SOA is at a much higher level > > -- the > > > > fact that you're exposing functionality as services in the first > > > > place. > > > > > > > > Today WS-* hits a sweet spot in enterprise application > > development, > > > > but that's primarily because the vendors provide tools and > > frameworks > > > > that enable web service development. For REST to "win" in the > > > > enterprise, the vendors need to provide comparable frameworks that > > > > enable RESTful development. That will probably require some > > different > > > > modeling tools that help designers model their resources > > (rather than > > > > their methods). > > > > > > > > And of course I might be blowing smoke here. Anyone that spends > > the > > > > time to figure out AOP usually comes away thinking that this is > > > > awesome stuff, and they don't understand why it hasn't swept the > > > > development world. But it hasn't, and it probably never will. > > The same > > > > may be true of REST. Anyone that spends the time to really > > understand > > > > this architectural style usually becomes a convert. But it's > > possible > > > > that the learning curve is just too steep, and the vendors > > won't be > > > > able to supply frameworks that effectively guide developers into > > > > designing RESTful systems. But it seems clear that they're > > going to > > > > try. > > > > > > > > From my perspective non-RESTful POX over HTTP is a poor > > substitute for > > > > SOAP. If you're not going to do REST, then it's better to stick > > with > > > > SOAP. > > > > > > > > In response to Stuart's remark: > > > > > > > > > > WHY, for example, I may want to have a URI > > > > > > for everything interesting instead of just embedding an > > arbitrary > > > > > > context-specific identifier in my XML document. > > > > > > > > To be RESTful, the XML document would include the URI of the > > resource > > > > of interest. By naming the resource and using hypermedia to > > reference > > > > it, you get the benefits of the Web. (Hypermedia as the engine of > > > > state.) It's an incredibly powerful feature. > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > On 5/31/07, Todd Biske wrote: > > > > > I certainly agree that SOA needs to be a balance between > > producer and > > > > > consumer interests. Unless you're a monopoly, or at least an > > 800- > > > > > pound gorilla, success with a producer-focused view will be > > difficult. > > > > > > > > > > I can also see your point that the REST debate offers > > interesting > > > > > lessons on being consumer-oriented, however, I think that's > > more a > > > > > statement on the potential complexity of WS-* than it is > > about the > > > > > potential benefits of REST. I suspect that the alternate > > approach in > > > > > those situations are more likely to be POX/HTTP than REST. As > > Anne > > > > > points out in her Burton Group APS blog, having every single > > resource > > > > > available as a unique URI is something that people are still > > getting > > > > > their arms around. While each resource is accessed via a uniform > > > > > interface, navigating the interactions across those resources > > in code > > > > > could get very complicated. This is where it becomes ROA, not > > SOA. > > > > > If the developers try to stick with an SOA approach, there's > > a risk > > > > > that it all just gets buried in POST operations which then > > begins to > > > > > look at lot like how WS-* works, minus WSDL and everything > > that goes > > > > > into SOAP headers. > > > > > > > > > > Like many others on the group, I think there are places for > > both REST > > > > > and WS-*. WS-* certainly has a sweet spot in many of the > > enterprise > > > > > integration problems, and you can argue that REST has the most > > > > > potential on the Web. Because the Web is a bit more > > associated with > > > > > loose, mashup type approaches that aren't as prominent in the > > > > > enterprise, it has a lot more to prove to gain adoption in the > > > > > enterprise. That will happen, it's just a matter of how long. It > > > > > won't be done at the detriment of WS-*, however, but rather as > > > > > complimentary to WS-*. There will be pockets where WS-* is being > > > > > used today where REST may be more appropriate, others where REST > > > > > enables new solutions that didn't previously exist (probably > > in the > > > > > presentation space), and then others where WS-* will thrive > > and you > > > > > won't see any REST. For example, I'm pretty sure that Anne and > > > > > others have mentioned management technologies as a potential > > fit for > > > > > REST, and I agree with her. When you see that one of the WS-* > > specs > > > > > in the management space is WS-Resource, it would seem to make > > sense > > > > > that this could be a good fit for REST. :) > > > > > > > > > > -tb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 31, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Stuart Charlton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I find if people look at SOA as a producer-focused view, > > i.e. "I have > > > > > > these capabilities to offer in the granularity that is > > convenient for > > > > > > me & aligned to my business", then certainly it's very > > different from > > > > > > REST. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some alternatively view SOA as a twin-track analysis (a > > balance > > > > > > between > > > > > > producer and consumer interests), which an approach that > > some analysts > > > > > > like CBDI promote. This approaches values synergy and > > serendipity > > > > > > across producers & consumers over alignment. There, I think > > REST > > > > > > offers many interesting lessons on the extent that one can > > > > > > "consumer-orient" one's services: the impact of global naming, > > > > > > interface generality, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for the POX/HTTP v. REST confusion, I tend to look at > > the tools as > > > > > > the culprit. There aren't really good agent-programming > > environments > > > > > > that concretely highlight WHY, for example, I may want to > > have a URI > > > > > > for everything interesting instead of just embedding an > > arbitrary > > > > > > context-specific identifier in my XML document. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Todd Biske wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> One point that Anne made which still doesn't get a lot of > > press is > > > > > >> the difference between Resource Oriented Architecture and > > Service > > > > > >> Oriented Architecture. In a companion article, it was > > called out > > > > > >> that REST is about the nouns, where SOA is about the > > verbs. This is > > > > > >> > > > > > >> part that I think needs some honest debate. Is a resource > > oriented > > > > > >> view of the world going to be better than a service > > oriented view? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Many people keep associating REST with SOA, but I think > > that's an > > > > > >> inaccurate portrayal. The people I've spoken with have > > been doing > > > > > >> POX over HTTP, which is not REST, and I'd argue that there > > are some > > > > > >> very big differences. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -tb > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On May 30, 2007, at 1:34 PM, ash galal wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> This is a very good article, but the problem with REST in > > the > > > > > >>> machine-to-machine interactions. Till now, I did not see > > anything > > > > > >>> about such interactions in any REST articles, seminars, > > or books. > > > > > >>> REST is very good concept for B2C but I couldn't find any > > > > > >>> justifications for B2B. > > > > > >>> If someone have such justifications or examples about B2B > > in REST, > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> please publish it here. > > > > > >>> Thank you > > > > > >>> Ashraf Galal > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Gervas Douglas wrote: > > > > > >>> I have a vague feeling that the subject of REST has > > arisen before > > > > > >> in > > > > > >>> this Group..... > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> <> > > >>> architecture (SOA) projects, you probably are > > not doing > > > > > >>> representational state transfer (REST) now, but within > > the next > > > > > >> five > > > > > >>> years you probably will be. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> That is how Burton Group Inc. analysts answered their own > > > > > >> rhetorical > > > > > >>> question – REST: Is it the next big thing? – with a > > resounding yes > > > > > >> at > > > > > >>> a Web conference on Tuesday. Repeating the mantra "The > > Web is REST. > > > > > >>> REST is the Web," Anne Thomas Manes, vice president and > > research > > > > > >>> director at Burton, said the only thing new about REST is > > that it > > > > > >> is > > > > > >>> starting to catch on with SOA tool vendors and the open > > source > > > > > >>> community as well as architects and developers. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "REST is not new because REST is in fact the Web," she > > said. "The > > > > > >> Web > > > > > >>> has been around for 15 years, but very few people have > > used it for > > > > > >>> service-oriented systems. Mostly REST is being used for > > visual > > > > > >>> applications, browser-based applications." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> That is about to change. Looking to the future, Manes > > listed time > > > > > >>> frames Burton predicts for REST adoption now and in the > > next three, > > > > > >>> five and 10 years. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "Today, it is only innovators that are really working > > with REST," > > > > > >> she > > > > > >>> said. "In three years, we should see the early adopters > > start to > > > > > >> play > > > > > >>> with REST. It will probably be five years before it is > > adopted by > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>> early majority. We anticipate that the late majority will > > probably > > > > > >> not > > > > > >>> pick up REST for at least another 10 years." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> What will drive REST adoption eventually is that it brings > > > > > >> structure > > > > > >>> in the form of "constraints" to the sometimes chaotic > > world of Web > > > > > >>> services, which includes those pesky rogue services, > > according to > > > > > >>> Burton. This will provide a level of maturity for SOA > > development. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Peter Lacey, senior consultant at Burton, played devil's > > advocate > > > > > >> on > > > > > >>> the Web conference, arguing the current state of Web > > services > > > > > >>> standards are inadequate and hamper SOA development, > > which needs > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>> constraints REST development will bring. Manes did not > > agree that > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>> state of Web services standards is hopeless, but she did > > advocate > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>> transition to REST for SOA. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> So what does this mean to IT departments in general, and > > enterprise > > > > > >>> architects and developers in particular? Manes said where > > they end > > > > > >> up > > > > > >>> on the adoption curve depends on the skills of the > > architects and > > > > > >>> developers and their willingness to think outside the box of > > > > > >>> object-oriented programming. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> She explained that the basic concept of REST, which > > starts with > > > > > >>> sending out GET commands sent via HTTP to URIs to > > retrieve data is > > > > > >>> simple enough. But she noted that even long-time REST > > advocates > > > > > >> admit > > > > > >>> having trouble thinking of applications in terms of REST. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Borrowing a verb from Robert A. Heinlein's fictional Martian > > > > > >> language > > > > > >>> in the 1961 novel "Stranger in a Strange Land," she said, > > "The > > > > > >> basic > > > > > >>> concepts are easy, but truly groking REST takes time." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> To illustrate the difference between an object-oriented > > approach > > > > > >> and > > > > > >>> REST, she used the example of writing a program to turn a > > > > > >> building's > > > > > >>> lights on and off, keeping in mind that in REST the power > > is in > > > > > >>> sending a command to a URI. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "A REST application to turn on and off the lights in your > > building > > > > > >>> will require you to design a URI for every light bulb and > > then you > > > > > >>> send it on/off messages," she explained. "It's not like I > > have a > > > > > >>> single service that manages all my light bulbs. It's a very > > > > > >> different > > > > > >>> approach to designing a system. And it's going to be > > really hard > > > > > >> for > > > > > >>> developers to get their hands around it." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Frameworks and tools for designing and building such REST > > > > > >> applications > > > > > >>> are coming from major vendors, especially IBM and > > Microsoft, which > > > > > >> are > > > > > >>> making major investments in the technology, she said. It > > is also > > > > > >>> coming from the open source community. The new version > > 2.0 of Ruby > > > > > >> on > > > > > >>> Rails "will make it easier to do REST Web services," > > Manes said. A > > > > > >>> major vendor commitment was confirmed this past week by > > Gerry > > > > > >> Cuomo, > > > > > >>> IBM Fellow and WebSphere CTO, who said in an interview at > > IBM's > > > > > >> Impact > > > > > >>> 2007 conference in Orlando, that Big Blue also sees REST > > as the > > > > > >> next > > > > > >>> big thing. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> However, the problem for early adopters is that most of > > the tools > > > > > >>> developers will use for future REST development are still > > on the > > > > > >>> drawing boards, and current tooling is not ready for > > REST, Manes > > > > > >> said. > > > > > >>> "Web services toolkits that say they do REST don't always > > [do it as > > > > > >>> advertised]," she said. "They do POX (plain old XML)." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> But architects and developers will not have long to wait > > before > > > > > >> REST > > > > > >>> is "baked into frameworks," she said. "You're going to > > see some > > > > > >> very > > > > > >>> interesting frameworks come down the line in the not too > > distant > > > > > >>> future," she predicted. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In the next three years, an IT organization's willingness > > to be > > > > > >>> patient with early versions of REST tools and to make the > > mind-leap > > > > > >>> from object-oriented programming will determine where > > they land on > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>> adoption curve, Manes said. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "The first thing you have to figure out is whether or not > > you're > > > > > >> ready > > > > > >>> for REST," she told her audience. "What's your developer > > skill set? > > > > > >>> Are they going to be comfortable working with XML? Are > > they going > > > > > >> to > > > > > >>> be comfortable working with raw HTTP? Are they > > comfortable working > > > > > >>> with open source projects, experimental frameworks or > > incubation > > > > > >>> projects? Are they open to letting go of their object- > > oriented > > > > > >>> mindset? Are they willing to relinquish the productivity > > frameworks > > > > > >>> that are inherent in the current vendor tooling and start > > working > > > > > >> in a > > > > > >>> more raw framework environment?" > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Any architect or IT manager answering yes to all of the > > above is a > > > > > >>> REST innovator in Manes book. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "If you're ready for REST I suggest you jump on board > > right away > > > > > >> and > > > > > >>> get ahead of the curve," she said. "You'll have to train > > your > > > > > >>> developers in REST principles. You'll probably want to > > adopt one of > > > > > >>> the new frameworks or help build one yourself to help your > > > > > >> developers > > > > > >>> implement RESTful applications. You definitely need to > > provide > > > > > >>> guidance to your people. What you want to do is work to > > the point > > > > > >>> where REST becomes the default for all your distributed > > > > > >> applications." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Those who are not ready to take the leap into REST need > > not be too > > > > > >>> concerned, she said, stressing that the advent of REST as > > the > > > > > >>> programming model for SOA is a matter of "when, not if.". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "If you're not ready for REST, if your organization is > > not ready to > > > > > >>> jump into the innovator stage that's okay," she reassured > > her > > > > > >>> audience. "You're not going to get hurt. It's perfectly > > reasonable > > > > > >> to > > > > > >>> wait two to three years for the frameworks to mature to > > the point > > > > > >>> where they are actually going to help you with this > > process. For > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>> time being, you probably should continue to use SOAP and > > WS-* to > > > > > >> build > > > > > >>> your distributed services." > > > > > >> > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > ______________ > > > > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join > > Yahoo!'s > > > > > > user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/ > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
