Perhaps we can all step back for a second... Let's - for a moment at least 8-) - forget about REST, WS-*, SOA, etc.. and just talk about software architecture. Pete laid out a summary (below) of how, IMO, it all works: how constraints on the relationship between architectural elements induce certain architectural properties.
Can we agree that this is a useful way for evaluating architectures & architectural styles? Or more exactly, can we agree that papers like Perry & Wolf's "Foundations", or chapter 1 of Roy Fielding's dissertation, describe useful evaluation methodologies? Mark. On 6/7/07, Peter Lacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll admit to a little trolling, but this is not hyperbole, it is not a > matter of opinion, and it is not a blanket statement based on religious > fervor. The fact is that there is a paper out there -- you know the one > -- that analyzes all prevalent means of distributed computing and teases > out the properties they exhibit and the design factors that brought > about those properties. Then, emphasizing "constraint and understanding > of the system context," applies those design factors (constraints) to a > new architectural style such that the end result is a system that > provably! exhibits the properties desired. Those properties being > separation of concerns, scalability, reliability, visibility, > performance, simplicity, and evolvability.
