On 6/3/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yup REST can indeed be used to deliver reliable systems, but I was asking > what about REST _guarentees_ reliability. So yes you can use REST and then > add on re-trys, use HTTP caching for non-time critical information and set up > either a resubmission approach or something very fancy to do "proper" > reliable messaging. But I'm really not sure which bit of REST (as opposed to > as you say decades old best practice) gives you the reliability.
The stateless constraint, primarily. Any other architectural style which uses that constraint will be similarly reliable. > > N.B. I am NOT saying REST can't be reliable, but that using REST doesn't mean > that automagically a service will be reliable, which appeared to be the > implication earlier in the thread. It will be reliable in the sense that it will be as immune as a service could be to network outages and other partial failures. I'd say that counts as "automagically reliable". Mark.
