• To: simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent)
• Subject: Re: REST has too many verbs
• From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:12:29 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1013490974.845.222.camel@l...> from "Simon St.Laurent" at Feb 12, 2002 12:16:14 AM

> Is that just a socket connection?  Yes, most likely.  Do we need
> agreement above that level to get things done?  Most likely.  Does that
> agreement need to be spelled out formally in a contract?  No, I don't
> think so.

Take it from a protocol weenie, you're in a for a big surprise.  If
you've got no a priori agreement about the task at hand, you're not
going to accomplish much.

RPC is a good example of this principle, but it's not difficult to
replicate the problem for other interaction styles.  What you describe,
if I understand you correctly, is a good way to do it with messaging.

> There's nothing magical here - just work to get on with.  I like it that
> way.  (And some purists might go as far as UDP messaging, but I'll admit
> to finding TCP as far down the stack as I care to venture.)

My concern was that you weren't looking high enough in the stack,
not that you were looking too low. 8-)

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@p...
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • A priori agreement
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Next by Date: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Previous by thread: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Next by thread: A priori agreement
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread