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 repeatedly stated (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?


no comment until now

Add your comment now