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

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne on REST-*

Expand Messages
  • Steve Jones
    2009/10/30 Nick Gall ... Which bit of a Linux library isn t machine processable? The API is the technical part, the bit that blows up at
    Message 1 of 53 , Oct 30, 2009
      2009/10/30 Nick Gall <nick.gall@...>
      > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...> wrote:
      > > Linux does have some REALLY specific formal documentation, the APIs, as does windows.  Something like Java has the APIs and the associated Javadoc.  These are very definate elements that produce compile time errors and with a decent IDE can be automagically used.
      > Steve, we must be using "formal" and "informal" in different ways. All
      > the Linux API and Windows API documentation I have seen, I would
      > consider "informal", ie not machine-processable and not formally
      > provable.

      Which bit of a Linux library isn't machine processable? The API is
      the technical part, the bit that blows up at compile time. The API
      isn't the documentation, that just helps you to use the API.

      > Most of the RESTful interface (API if you will) docI've seen are at
      > least as rigorous, but just as informal as the Windows API
      > documentation and Linux API documentation I have seen.

      Really, so where is the stuff I can get that blows up at compile time?
      I could read the stuff and then create my own mocks and contracts
      (and maybe make a mistake) but there is nothing that I can directly
      import into a development environment or design environment to act as
      the basis for interaction.

      > Thousands of developers seem to successfully use the documentation of
      > Google's RESTful interfaces at code.google.com.

      Including myself, it really is pretty good quality documentation.

      > I guess I'm not getting the distinction you seem to be trying to make here.

      Two pieces

      1) Formal and Technical interfaces are machine readable mechanisms for
      verifying whether your consumer is valid at some basic level
      2) Google's way is great, Yahoo's way is different and there are lots
      of different ways. Wouldn't a standard way, even a standard
      _informal_ way of documenting this stuff be a good idea?


      > -- Nick
    • Michael Poulin
      Agree with Steve - Michael ________________________________ From: Steve Jones To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
      Message 53 of 53 , Nov 10, 2009
        Agree with Steve
        - Michael

        From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
        To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 6:56:28 AM
        Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne on REST-*

        2009/11/8 Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@...>
        > Steve,
        > On Nov 8, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
        > > This is the bit that surprises me about REST advocates. On the one
        > > hand they champion an extremely rigid and limited interface as being
        > > the right way to do things and in the same breath claim that rigid
        > > interfaces are a bad thing.
        > I made a mistake in terminology there 'rigid' should have been
        > 'specific'.
        > So, REST advocates prefer the uniform interface over the specific
        > because the
        > uniform interface has advantages over the specific[1]

        A claim without much evidence.  I'd argue that my claim that specific
        interfaces with tight definitions have significant advantages over
        undocumented dynamic interfaces.  802.11x, HTTP, GSM, etc, etc, etc


        > Sorry for the confusion.
        > Jan
        > [1] <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_5
        > >
        > --------------------------------------
        > Jan Algermissen
        > Mail: algermissen@...
        > Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
        > Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
        > --------------------------------------


        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

        <*> Your email settings:
            Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
            (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

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