[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Principle of Sustainable Complexity

• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Principle of Sustainable Complexity
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:21:08 -0500
• In-reply-to: <D7155AD41ECFD511AF4A00B0D0202CB51DFD9F@MAILHOST>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <D7155AD41ECFD511AF4A00B0D0202CB51DFD9F@MAILHOST>

On Tuesday 12 February 2002 06:27 pm, Michael Brennan wrote:
> > This is because REST is an architecture, not a protocol.
>
> Yes. I misspoke, there. But aside from a few misplaced words, I
> think my point is valid. The point I was making is that REST tells
> us the protocol should be quite visible to the application
> architecture (and vice versa), whereas typical patterns used today
> by web developers is to minimize that intrusion and hide the
> protocol from the application level design (and vice versa). 

I'm not sure that REST says that, though Roy's thesis (from memory) 
*does* say that choice of protocol should be defined by choice of 
networking architecture, which should be defined by choice of 
application architecture etc. I think this is sensible.

> There are other issues with REST, here, but I don't see complexity
> as one of them.

REST is not  complex (especially in the most abstract as a set of 
design constraints). REST over HTTP *is* complex.

• References:
  • RE: Principle of Sustainable Complexity
    • From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>

• Prev by Date: RE: REST has too many verbs
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
• Previous by thread: RE: Principle of Sustainable Complexity
• Next by thread: Xerces error report "attribute 'foo' should be qualified"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread