Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:48:14PM -0500, Michael Champion wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:00:10 -0500, Michael Champion wrote > > > I maintain that there is no deep architectural principle here -- > > either approach exposes essentially the same order of complexity from > > the service provider to the service consumer. > > As is often the case, David Megginson > http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/archives/2005/03/31/rest-and-rss/ > makes a similar point far more eloquently : "REST offloads complexity > from the protocol (HTTP) to the content (XML). That makes REST look > simple as long as you focus only on the protocol, but RESTafarians > cannot get away forever with leaving the content format for data > unspecified." With all due respect to both of you, that simply isn't the case. The data is *identical* in the examples I gave, so there's no place for that additional complexity to go. It's *gone* because an architectural tradeoff was made; simplicity for efficiency. I might as well quote Roy at this point; "By applying the software engineering principle of generality to the component interface, the overall system architecture is simplified [...] The trade-off, though, is that a uniform interface degrades efficiency, since information is transferred in a standardized form rather than one which is specific to an application's needs." -- http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_5 Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
|
