+1 Makes me remember a comment made by a customer some years back when he told me that he insists on using TR4 (token ring) over 1GB CDMA/CD because token ring was more "reliable".
I, also, remember reading an article few years back on cache. Everybody wanted to put cache in their part of a product - e.g. chips, OS, and applications. The article debated on whether all these caches actually made the overall application to the enduser faster. I think security is like a cache. If my application servers are all going to be connected only by a private network segment or by a VPN, do I need another level of security? I do understand that there are some situations where there is no underlying security layers, but I was wondering how many such actual situations exists to warrant a technology as being labeled unusable. H.Ozawa Mark Baker wrote: > On 6/2/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> To say that something that works over HTTP will exhibit "reliability" >> sounds a little bit odd, given that HTTP is by design an unreliable >> protocol. >> > > REST concerns itself with properties of an architecture as a whole, > not of individual features of the system. It has been understood for > decades, that it is possible to build reliable systems with unreliable > messages. > > Mark. > >
