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

RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects

• To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>, "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@m...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects
• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>
• Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:40:57 -0800

> From: Michael Brennan 

<snip/>

>   REST uses URIs for addressing, rather than opaque handles 
> tied to a particular ORB.

Before anyone jumps in, here, and points out that REST treats URIs as
opaque, I should rephrase this. OO implementations use handles that are tied
to particular vendors' implementations. IORs tried to overcome this, but I
don't see those ubiquitously deployed. And even today, you still hear those
working with ORBs (or EJB servers) griping about the difficulting in getting
different vendors tools to interoperate. The advice usually ends up being
"try to standardize on one vendor's servers and tools".

I don't need to standardize on one vendor's servers and tools to use URIs. I
can use an "http:" URI to access any vendor's web server, and I can hook my
own applications into any vendor's web server. Problem solved. We don't need
IORs -- as long as I can actually use the URI to address the component I
want... as, for instance, in the case where a system models its interface in
terms of URI-addressable resources, as REST advocates.

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects
• Next by Date: RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects
• Next by thread: RE: RE: A Two Day Workshop for Software Architects
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread