Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Friday 01 March 2002 02:54 pm, Paul Prescod wrote: > 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. Interoperability at scale is a red herring. There are vast systems that interoperate that don't use REST. A large part of the trend we see is toward very loosely coupled/typed systems and robustness in the face of evolution.... kind of the same thing that increasingly pushes us toward scripting languages vs. assembler. REST plays well here which is a large part of it's value. > 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. Sure, but we haven't seen anything in REST that would truly reduce the number of holes.
|
