Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Amy Lewis wrote: > >... > It's exactly as opaque to computers as a bag of name-value pairs, or > the parts of a MIME multipart/related message. If you'd like to give > REST a rest and recovery, try getting rid of MIME, which is equally > guilty of most of the alleged sins of SOAP. MIME does not claim to be a protocol. It is a data format. It has no responsibility to signal intent other than to declare content-type. I have no conflict with (nor interest in) the data format bits of SOAP. If they were split off from the protocol bits then I would have no problem with them. HTTP is a protocol. It has a standardized way that responsible application developers can signal to intermediaries what they are trying to do. So do SMTP etc. They can be subverted, no doubt. But they provide *explicit, standardized, means* that help responsible application designers to do the Right Thing. Not only does SOAP NOT provide these means (because as a protocol, it is an RPC, not application protocol), it undermines HTTP's by requiring people to do the Wrong Thing with respect to HTTP. Paul Prescod
|
