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

Re: Doing Web services right

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Doing Web services right
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:53:42 -0500
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1024-15A025D5543811D7BED30003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <r01050400-1024-15A025D5543811D7BED30003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• User-agent: Opera7.0/Win32 M2 build 2637

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:09:48 -0500, Simon St.Laurent 
<simonstl@s...> wrote:

>
> Perhaps it's not later bound, but it's very different stuff.

Fair enough, but that trail takes us off into permathread land, and I don't 
want to go there.   I was wondering specifically about late binding.


> Then again, I've argued more than once that REST has too many verbs, and
> that passing nouns from place to place should be enough.

Ooooohhhh, the declarative-procedural controversy, the mother of 
permathreads :-)  I'll stay out of that too.  But seriously, I agree with 
Eliotte Harold's suggestion that someone (us collectively?) try to 
characterize the features that distinguish *technically* successful large- 
scale sites from those that are hard to use, fragile, unreliable, etc.  It 
would be very interesting if Fielding's notion of "sites that don't [expletive deleted]" 
is empirically supportable as well as theoretically elegant. 

• References:
  • Re: Doing Web services right
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: CFP: XML Database Symposium at VLDB2003 (fwd)
• Next by Date: Re: Doing Web services right
• Previous by thread: Re: Doing Web services right
• Next by thread: Re: Doing Web services right
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread