Rob Eamon wrote: > > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:service-orientated-architecture%40yahoogroups.com>, Gregg Wonderly > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ...then you have to make sure you cover everything that a client > > would want to do with the data that your service exposes. > > This may be a nit, and I may be reading more into the comment than what > is there, but isn't the focus of what a service exposes supposed to be > capabilities, not data? Data is exchanged certainly but the reason for > calling an operation/service is to cause something to happen. A data > focus would seem to be out of place. In other words, you have to make > sure you cover all the operations that a client will want from your > service.
If you are talking about URIs, I assume you are talking about a Restful service design which means there are resources, not operations. In my example my URIs appeared to be file names of images. But, that's just one way that a service might interpret those URIs. My point was that as a service provider, if the URIs make sense and have a publicized standard format, then you don't have to provide "operations" you just provide "resources", which can then be manipulated by a client of any type, whether it's a power user typing URIs by hand, or a web page with complete navigation control based on hypermedia. Here is an example of what I think is a good example of documented URIs http://www.findu.com/cgi.html This allows the community of people using this facility to craft a wide range of "features" for their own use without the provider having to guess what everyone needs. Instead, the CGIs provide access to the resources, not to functions. Gregg Wonderly
