• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: REST & types
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 01:14:16 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C7FDB12.7CD3F629@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <200203010356.WAA22071@m...> <3C7FDB12.7CD3F629@p...>

On Friday 01 March 2002 02:48 pm, Paul Prescod wrote:
> I see type safety as being orthogonal to REST. That's why I'm
> creating WRDL. If you want type safety, you should get it. If you
> don't, you can just ignore WRDL.

While I think type *is* orthogonal (as is validation), sooner or 
later, *something* has to interpret the data and the overloaded 
methods... thereby introducing the notion of "type"...

FWIW. I think WRDL might be damaging to your cause because it makes 
things look too much like web services. You might be better off 
defining a mechanism for composition thereby allowing abstraction.

• References:
  • Re: REST & types
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: REST as RPC done right
• Next by Date: Re: REST & types
• Previous by thread: Re: REST & types
• Next by thread: Re: REST & types
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread