On Jan 13, 2008 8:37 AM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The interface is proprietary as its specific to a given > implementation, linked directly to that implementation and not managed > by any sort of standards body.
I hear what you say, and you may be technically correct that the interface is heavily linked to HTTP, but certainly the definition of REST was an important step in breaking those apart. I no longer see the interface as proprietary even though the implementation of their original definition is. > > Which isn't different to "Jini 'services' works because you know how > > to use Jini." > > It is as I can download a formal specification for Jini, build my own > implementation and have all the proxy/dynamic code/lookup/leasing/etc > stuff work and interoperate with others. I was talking conceptually here, not technically. > REST provides a syntax but not the semantics. Dangerous word that 'semantics' as there are plenty of semantics in syntax. :) Actually here I think you're referring to HTTP bringing syntax as REST is merely a design style. Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
