Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [rest-discuss] RE: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web Services the REST Way

Expand Messages
  • Paul Prescod
    ... Actually, you should read this: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/04/04/soap.html ... IIRC, Lotus Notes and Compuserve had all of the industry momentum in
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Matt Gushee wrote:
      >
      >...
      >
      > Okay, here's the forest as I see it:
      >
      > SOAP has existed for about 2 1/2 years, and from very early on has been
      > heavily promoted by both Microsoft and IBM.

      Actually, you should read this:
      http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/04/04/soap.html

      >...
      > So the fact that REST isn't on the verge of taking over the world means
      > what, exactly?

      IIRC, Lotus Notes and Compuserve had all of the industry momentum in
      1993/1994. The Web was an academic toy. That analogy was not picked at
      random. Both of those products failed to understand the importance of
      global, open, linking and addressing.
      --
      Come discuss XML and REST web services at:
      Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com
      Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
    • Bill de hÓra
      ... Well said. Perhaps the problem is that industry is not fully cognizant of what it has been building. I m reminded that many programmers did not realize
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@...]
        >
        > There is nothing trivial about a the amount of money industry
        > has spent implementing the REST architecture. I'm sorry if it
        > seems that way to you. One of the main inventors of REST is
        > also one of the lead designers of Apache (Fielding). So
        > surprise, surprise, Apache has REST ideas deep down in its
        > core. I see nothing trivial about pointing that out. PHP's
        > developers are strongly influenced by the Apache group, so
        > PHP has REST ideas deep down in its core too. etc. etc. for IIS.

        Well said. Perhaps the problem is that industry is not fully cognizant
        of what it has been building. I'm reminded that many programmers did not
        realize fully what they were doing with OO until the likes of Jim
        Coplien and the GoF articulated the idea of Software Patterns.

        Bill de hÓra

        ..
        Propylon
        www.propylon.com
      • Paul Prescod
        ... True enough. We all learned web programming so incrementally. It was never approached as an architectural style, it was always tactical: gotta get this
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill de hÓra wrote:
          >
          >...
          >
          > Well said. Perhaps the problem is that industry is not fully cognizant
          > of what it has been building. I'm reminded that many programmers did not
          > realize fully what they were doing with OO until the likes of Jim
          > Coplien and the GoF articulated the idea of Software Patterns.

          True enough. We all learned web programming so incrementally. It was
          never approached as an architectural style, it was always tactical:
          "gotta get this information up today. Better give a different URI to
          each thing so it can be bookmarked. Oops, using POST messes up the
          'refresh' button. Better use GET." etc.
          --
          Come discuss XML and REST web services at:
          Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com
          Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
        • Bill de hÓra
          ... Sure, but that s what J2EE is according to Sun. A big beast. ... Yep, but the interop standard for EJB is RMI-IIOP, not RMI; historically that was invented
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: S. Mike Dierken [mailto:mdierken@...]
            > Sent: 05 July 2002 18:17
            > To: rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Building Web
            > Services the REST Way
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Bill de hÓra" <dehora@...>
            >
            > > J2EE is way (waayy) more complicated than SOAP;
            > > EJB+Servlets+JDBC+JAAS+RMI-IIOP+JNDI+JMS...
            >
            > That's because it's doing different things.

            Sure, but that's what J2EE is according to Sun. A big beast.


            > I wouldn't include IIOP (from Corba) or RMI (from Java) -
            > optional & usually available but not required in J2EE.

            Yep, but the interop standard for EJB is RMI-IIOP, not RMI; historically
            that was invented to keep the CORBA crowd happy. And it's essence is
            synchronous, RPC and pass by value. I honestly don't know how well the
            stubs and skeletons thing fits with REST, but otherwise RMI-IIOP doesn't
            strike me as a RESTful protocol.


            > JAAS is probably just as
            > core - I just don't happen to have any experience with it.

            JAAS looks nice, it does much the same for authentication and
            authorization that JNDI does for directories and JDBC does for
            datasources. Clients can declare controls impendent of implementations.
            I wanted to use it an upcoming project, but I didn't think there was
            time for me to pick it up properly.

            Bill de hÓra

            ..
            Propylon
            www.propylon.com
          • Philip Eskelin
            ... I agree with your position that any web development platform could be called a REST toolkit. However, I think a more RESTful toolkit should have types
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 7, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Paul wrote:
              > I don't see the problem. REST is the architecture of the Web and a REST
              > toolkit would be a piece of software that helps you build the mediating
              > layer between your application and the Web. AFAIK, that's what (e.g.)
              > J2EE and Zope are used for. Now that XML has come along it makes sense
              > to want to extend these things. Just as they had native knowledge of
              > HTML, you might want to give them native knowledge of XML and RDF. And
              > maybe newer toolkits could better enforce best practices. But overall, I
              > see no problem calling any web development platform a REST toolkit. REST
              > is not something new.

              I agree with your position that any web development platform could be called a
              REST toolkit. However, I think a more RESTful toolkit should have types defined
              in its namespace that correspond to Fielding's documented approach if it's going
              to make programming RESTfully feel more concretely similar (and IMO easier to
              comprehend the REST style).

              For example, here are some of the objects that are being implemented in my
              toolkit (sorry I keep bringing up my own vaporware, but it's the most concrete
              thing I have right now): CObject, CString, CList, CTable, CResource,
              CRepresentation, CConnector, CStream, CRequest, CResponse, CComponent, CFilter,
              CProxy, etc.

              Add a handful of sample apps to a class framework like this and you've got a
              nice simple way to communicate the essence of the RESTful style.

              -Philip
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.