Dave Orchard thinks so.
But hold the phones! Along the way, we learn this;
Read operations using a generic protocol (ie GET) hits the 90/10 point
Woohoo! Preach it, brother!
But you knew it wasn’t going to end there…8-) He goes on to defend
the need for service-specific write interfaces with an example.
Without getting into the details of that example since they’re reasonably
complex, I certainly agree that one can, without too much trouble, find
cases where uniform semantics are more trouble than they’re worth. But
so what? Did anybody ever doubt this was the case? I’ve
(and long before too, though I can’t dig up any refs right now) that it was, including
mentioning that I’ve had to use non-uniform semantics on occasion.
I think the question David really needs to answer is this; do we need
specific write interface semantics like “orderBook”, “hirePerson”, “reserveFlight”,
etc..? I don’t think we do; I think POST suffices for all three.
Also, I wonder if Dave would like to augment his
architectural description of the SOA style
to include an interface constraint, even if it’s just for reads?