--- In [email protected], "Mark Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/11/3 Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> 2008/11/2 Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> "millions of developers" are obeying the hypermedia constraint? I'm > >>>>> assuming that you have no figures to back up that bold assertion. > >>>> > >>>> The only figure I need is this one; > >>>> > >>>> http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~asignori/web-size/ > >>>> > >>>> plus the knowledge that pervasive use of hypermedia is a necessary > >>>> condition for the Web to have reached that size. > >>> > >>> Errr Mark, you do know the difference between the use of hypermedia > >>> and the concept of hypermedia as the engine of state don't you? The > >>> two are not a single thing, I'm surprised you aren't aware of that. > >> > >> Of course I'm aware of the difference, Steve. But it's immaterial > >> when the links contain sufficient information for the next state in > >> the application state machine to be reached through the reception of a > >> new representation. Like, for example, when they're http links. > > > > This thread started off with an example from Roy Fielding of why > > people using HTTP and claiming it as REST are muppets and should stop > > doing it. You now appear to be saying that as long as you use an HTTP > > link then its fine to break every REST rule in the book so RPC is fine > > as long as you do it via HTTP links. > > What are you talking about? I think the discussion is quite clear, > and that nobody could reasonably make that assumption based on what > I've said in previous messages. > > >>>> And if you're looking for examples or counter-examples, don't bother > >>>> looking at how individual sites are structured, because that's not > >>>> what yields a "Web". Instead, look at inter-site integration. > >>> > >>> Oh for pities sake, so show me the millions of people who have done > >>> inter-site integration then. > >> > >> Would one suffice? I just visited your blog, and noticed it presented > >> a link to your book's page at InfoQ.com. Well done! > > > > Oh boy. You really do like clutching at straws in your strawman. > > > > Hypertext linking is NOT the same as Hypermedia as the engine of state. > > > > As an example from my blog there is NOTHING that says what the purpose > > of the link is or what the type of the destination page is or indeed > > what the reason for the link is, the best you can say is that the link > > has a description but then you can't use that for inference as its > > pure untyped English. > > None of what you describe there is necessary for inter-site > integration using the Web. All that's required is a link, and that's > what you've got. Take a bow already, and stop being so modest. 8-) > > > I thought you understood about REST and the difference between people > > who just use HTTP and claim REST (what Roy was moaning about) and > > people who are actually doing REST. Clearly you have a massive > > difference of opinion with Roy on the minimum criteria to define REST > > compliance, I look forward to your blog post explaining why all that > > is required to "do REST" is a hyperlink. > > No, I don't Steve. You just don't understand what I'm saying. That's > ok, it happens, but you might want to tone down the incredulity a tad.
Let us not get too emotional, gentlemen. I realise that kool-aid when drunk during a REST v. WS* battle can lead to over-excitement.... Gervas > > Mark. >
