Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Miles Sabin wrote: > > Paul Prescod wrote, > > HTTP can of course be used to tunnel (POST: don't ask, don't tell). > > But REST is an integration architecture: tunnelling of proprietary > > protocols is precisely what it is designed to *replace*. > > Sure, but here there's a significant cost: if you want to use REST/HTTP > you'd have to expand the scope of the secure endpoint to include the > HTTP server. And that means that you have a much bigger chunk of > software that'd need to pass the relevant certification criteria ... > and that could be *very* time-consuming and expensive (if, indeed, it's > possible at all in any realistic sense). No doubt. REST isn't for anything. If you don't care about widespread interoperability and integration then I would't say it has any benefit for you. There are tons of ad hoc ways to tunnel proprietary data through the Internet. I don't see think you would need either a "standard" or an "architecture" for that. You've already decided on your architecture and you've already decided to use a proprietary application protocol. What value could REST (as opposed to HTTP) add? -- 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/
|
