Re: REST & types
> > A lot of the arguments posed for REST seem to depend on programmers > being lazy. So once again, we get arguments that > the architecture should be designed for "the slowest runner". "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > > Arguments based on "RPC is bad for security; REST is good > for security because the programmers will make naive mistakes" > are "slowest runner" arguments. A marathon run with a bad > knee will be just as painful and longer than a sprint. First, you've taken one argument and acted as if it is many. The vast majority of the arguments for REST have nothing to do with programmer competency and everything to do with making systems that interoperate at scale versus in labs. Second, it is very common in the security world to promote systems that promote security, because no system can in and of itself guarantee security. I see nothing wrong with choosing an architecture because it might tend to lower the number of security holes. Paul Prescod
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format