2007/01/13
-
Took me 10 minutes to figure out. What do I win?
Add your comment
2007/01/12
Personally, I like his previous attempt far, far better. Why go for loosey-goosey principles – few of which, AFAICT, are testable – when we all know that constraints define architectural styles? Come on Dave, give people the information they need to be able to say “That is SOA”, and “That isn’t”.
A couple of years ago, Dave pleaded for technical arguments in the REST vs. SOA debate. I’d urge him now to do the same. As an example, perhaps he can explain, in technical terms, how he is able to defend a principle such as “Software should be as loosely coupled as possible to the interface” as well as service-specific interfaces. As I’ve pointed out, those two goals are at direct odds with each other because service specific interfaces fail to separate interface from implementation, and we all know that loose coupling is gained only by separating concerns.
-
“One really important development here is that we may soon see the end of the “mobile web” as a separate concept”. God, I hope so. Listening, RIM? Vodafone?
-
Cute!
-
It’s not a closed platform; it has a browser.
2007/01/11
Stu Charlton responds to my comment (and Mark’s) about how Pat Helland did things the hard way in discovering REST in a recent paper of his;
So, while the two Marks are suggesting Pat’s reached REST the hard way, I would suggest this is something he’s been saying for years, […]
That is the hard way! 8-O If Pat’s been unknowingly preaching REST constraints for years, then he’s done it from scratch. That’s a great personal accomplishment of course; I wish I were that smart. But wouldn’t it have been great if he had noticed that what he was talking about was being built out right under his nose for the past 15 years? 8-) I don’t fault him for that any more than I fault the bulk of the industry for also missing it (which is to say, a tiny bit 8-).
Anyhow, hopefully this paper can be the catalyst that helps push the industry towards a better understanding of the power and value of the Web. Of course, it also brings a new perspective to bear on the Web itself, from a seasoned distributed computing veteran, so that can only help Web proponents, perhaps motivating new Web based solutions. At the very least, they’ve got me thinking, which is always good 8-)
2007/01/10
-
“The benefits of an SOA include […] intrinsic interoperability”. Ah yes, *intrinsic* interop. Can’t leave home without it! Quality analysis. 8-/
-
I’ve got some minor issues with this, but all in all, not bad!
-
“The ‘http:’ form is much more likely to persist, since it is so firmly embedded into the fabric of everything we do these days.”
2007/01/09
-
I think Mike’s missing the bigger picture; the focus on reuse
-
Love that diagram and its “impedance barrier” 8-)
-
“The paper introduces the concept of “entities” which are identified by keys and to which messages are sent.”. Oh my! I wonder how Pat will feel when he realizes he’s describing the Web? 8-O
2007/01/03
-
Another great piece from Steve. Try as I might though, I can’t find the “SOA side” of the argument 8-)
-
A nice RESTful API that doesn’t even self-describe as one (as it needn’t do, of course; it’s the Web)
-
“At some point some de facto standards must emerge also for REST to represent those most common artifacts like addressing […]”. Erm, ouch.
-
Sign me up!
-
My position paper to the upcoming W3C workshop on an enterprise Web of services
2007/01/02
-
Does anybody else find #12 a wee bit ironic, given Don’s role in WS-*? 8-/
-
An update