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

Re: REST & types

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: REST & types
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 01:21:13 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C7FDC80.A9B8742E@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE96D@HQ5> <3C7FDC80.A9B8742E@p...>

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.

• References:
  • RE: REST & types
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: REST & types
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

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