Nick, I must admit I enjoyed your logical approach - I guess even 1% of a billion-odd would be a lot. It is easy to forget the vast scale of the Web. Nick, you would have made a great lawyer, if I may so observe... :)
Gervas --- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Firstly I didn't write that slide (a chap at work called Ben Scowen > > did) because I wanted to make sure I got a REST fan writing stuff > > rather than a REST cynic, I'll pass on your comments. > > Somehow I had a feeling that someone other than you wrote that bullet. > > > Secondly the WWW is the biggest RESTful system out there... BUT as I > > said in the voice over the majority of the Web _isn't_ implemented as > > a REST. In theory WWW is _all_ RESTful but in practice it isn't (e.g. > > > http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/hrmselector/comparisontable_search_form4.php > > should be a straight parametrised GET but is a POST and the "Search > > Again" doesn't include the previously selected elements). > > I wholeheartedly agree that most websites that comprise the WWW aren't > implemented in a fully RESTful way. We can leave the debate regarding > what percentage > for another day. My point is that even if the "vast vast majority" of > websites aren't fully RESTful, that still means that some (perhaps tiny) > percentage of websites are fully RESTful, and a somewhat greater percentage > (but perhaps still a small minority) are at least partially RESTful. I think > we agree on this (see below). > > > My point in the discussion with Mark is that most people (the vast > > vast majority) do not implement Websites in a RESTful way, even though > > WWW is inherently RESTful by its Fielding definition. > > Again, no need to quibble about percentages, for the sake of the point I'll > make below, let's agree that the "vast vast majority" of people do NOT > implement websites in a fully RESTful way. But let's also agree that at > least some tiny percentage DO implement websites in a substantially or > wholly RESTful way. > > > Not really a contradiction its a question of theory v practice, in > > theory Mark is right, in practice I am ;) > > Ahhh... but there still is a bit of contradiction left. Though we all now > roughly agree that the websites that compose the WWW mostly fall short of > full REST compliance, and that most of those that fall short fall WAY short, > this still means that a small, but significant set of websites do exemplify > the REST style. But that's not what you said in the post I quoted: > > > > 'Your references are about purely websites, this has NOTHING to do with > proving your statement on REST adoption being in the "millions".' > > My problem with this statement is your use of all caps "NOTHING" in your > assertion. If you had said, "almost nothing", or "virtually nothing", or > "very little", etc. there wouldn't be a contradiction. Maybe its just me, > but when I read "NOTHING" in all caps, I take that to mean absolutely, > positively, CATEGORICALLY nothing with no exceptions or degrees whatsoever. > > But given our agreement that at least some websites of the WWW are > substantially or wholly RESTful, this means that Mark's reference to "purely > websites" has at least something to do with "REST adoption being in the > 'millions'". That was my point in my email raising the issue. > > Now this is not to say that the fact that SOME websites are RESTful makes > Mark's case that REST has been adopted by "millions". We'd have to go out > and count the number of websites we considered RESTful enough to count. But, > it does mean that your claim that such websites have "NOTHING" to do with > REST adoption cannot be reconciled with your apparent admission that at > least some websites are implemented RESTfully. > > I say apparent because you never come out and directly state this. You > simply said things such as "most people (the vast vast majority) do not > implement Websites in a RESTful way". This implies that you agree that at > least a minority DO implement Websites in a RESTful way." > > So Mark's counting of such websites towards his goal of "millions" of > RESTful developers did indeed have SOMETHING to do with the issue of how > many RESTful developers there are in the world. Accordingly, to > categorically exclude (via the use of "NOTHING") such RESTful websites from > attempts to estimate the number of RESTful developers is wrong. > > I hope you agree that if and when we ever do get around to estimating the > number of RESTful designers/developers we can justifiably include in that > count some number of website designers, not just application-to-application > interface designers. > > -- Nick > > > 2008/12/2 Nick Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Gervas Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> <<So last week at AdobeMAX I did my first public presentation on doing > > >> REST and SOA together. Thanks to Duane for that and to the person who > > >> dropped out leaving me with the baby :) > > > > > > Steve, I'm going through the slides right now. So far they are > excellent. > > > This particular bullet on slide 22 caught my eye: > > > "The World Wide Web is therefore inherently RESTful and the largest > example > > > of a REST based system." > > > Amen to that brother! That reminded me of the debate Steve and Mark had > back > > > in early November. In one post > > > ( > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/message/11892), > > > Steve asserted: > > > 'Your references are about purely websites, this has NOTHING to do > > > with proving your statement on REST adoption being in the "millions".' > > > In my mind, saying the WWW is inherently RESTful and is the largest > example > > > of a REST-based system strongly implies that Mark's references to > websites, > > > which are what make up the WWW after all, has at least SOMETHING to do > with > > > REST adoption. > > > How could all these web site designers/developers have contributed to > the > > > emergence of the WWW -- the largest example of a REST-based system -- > > > without in some way "adopting" or implementing REST? It seems quite > strange > > > to say that all the world's web site designers/developers were ignoring > REST > > > yet from all these ignorant efforts the WWW emerged as "inherently > RESTful." > > > Steve, could you please reconcile these two statement? > > > -- Nick > > > > > > > > > > -- > Nick Gall > Phone: +1.781.608.5871 > AOL IM: Nicholas Gall > Yahoo IM: nick_gall_1117 > MSN IM: (same as email) > Google Talk: (same as email) > Email: nick.gall AT-SIGN gmail DOT com > Weblog: http://ironick.typepad.com/ironick/ >
