Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
For some reason, there are a whole slew of messages that never showed up in my mailbox. So I'm responding to a few comments I'm seeing in the archives. From Paul Prescod: > I think that we are on different wavelengths. What data does a DELETE > message need? You have a URI for the object you want to delete, you just > delete it. You might just as well ask why do SQL "delete" statements need a where clause; just specify the primary key. But developers find having more flexibility than that to be quite useful. > Plus you've mixed "protocol" (actions) with "data" (the content of the > message). This makes it hard to use predefined vocabularies like RSS or > some industry-specific one. I think that's a big problem. Using a model > where the action is separate from the message, you can easily apply the > same action to RSS, XHTML, or HumanML. I disagree. That is only the case when the data vocabulary is designed in a monolithic fashion that does not permit modularization, or if you insist that a "protocol" cannot rely upon an XML vocabulary. I don't see that either view is going to fit very well with the web services model. SOAP itself uses the model I am talking about. You have an XML envelope, with XML headers, and XML body entries that contain XML data. This envelope, headers, and body is all part of a protocol. Is this mixing "protocol" and "data"? If not, then where do you draw the line and say "if you put a tag here, you are mixing protocol and data".
|
