2006/11/15
-
“Please do not play this game. We cannot stress this enough” 8-)
Add your comment
2006/11/14
-
“When I first met Web fundamentalists, I found them irritating, because they would not debate on technical grounds. However, they have ultimately proved to be entertaining.” I aim to please! 8-O
2006/11/13
-
“But be careful, RESTifarians can be extremely meticulous when discussing the finer points of REST[…]” 8-) But seriously, that’s the point; REST is extremely tightly defined because it has to be.
2006/11/12
-
Yesterday’s “rich” is tomorrow’s “plain”
2006/11/10
Ian Foster writes about OGSA-DAI (Data Access and Integration);
[…] it provides uniform Web Services interfaces to diverse data resources
Neat! That’s so 1990.
How many times do we really need to reinvent the Web, on top of the Web?
All this because of a little confusion over a word. Wow.
-
Some early Web history from Roy
-
“Put succinctly, 20 years into an architecture, success is measured by the ability of systems implemented on Day One to interoperate unchanged with systems implemented on Day 20369.” I’ll be there.
-
Go, Anne. It seems like the mobile crowd are committed to fragmenting the Web. WAP is dead, long live WAP!
-
Google goes open data? Some services already are (e.g. GMail – can download all email via POP3), but I expect they’ll be very selective with what they open up.
-
“The Senators Ticket Marketplace is an online service that allows Senators Full Season Package Holders to resell their tickets to fans interested in purchasing premium seat locations for Senators hockey games.” Yeah!
-
“Your work is not done, but your victory against the evil of pork and Pinot resting on neighboring shelves is secured.”
2006/11/09
-
For air travellers confronted with oxygen masks. Hah!
-
“While this group is not the first to identify these problems, we do recognize that there may be a single architectural enhancement that solves them all. Namely, a higher-level DNS-based naming scheme (i.e. URIs) coupled with signaling protocols […]”. H
2006/11/08
-
I knew I recognized crummy.com (home of Leonard Richardson of recent REST book fame) from somewhere! I used BeautifulSoup for a project a couple of years ago.
-
New AC outfitting for international executive-first.
-
“In short, if SOAP is only useful when used in conjunction with the advanced WS framework, then, for the time being at least, SOAP isn’t useful at all” Ding! Subscribed. P.S. Pete – one word to respond to your last paragraph; Atom.
2006/11/06
I like how news of Sam and Leonard’s REST book is kicking off a new REST/SOAP thread. This time though, it seems the tables are turned and it’s the Web services proponents who are having to defend their preferred architectural style, rather than other way around. It’s about freakin’ time! I’m kinda tuckered 8-O
Sanjiva chimes in, in response to Sam’s probing questions;
ARGH. I wish people will stop saying flatly incorrect things about a SOAP message: it does NOT contain the method name. That’s just a way of interpreting SOAP messages […] SOAP is just carrying some XML and in some cases people may want to interpret the XML as a representation of a procedure call/response. However, that’s a choice of interpretation for users and two parties of a communication may interpret it differently and still interoperate.
Oh my.
Every message has a “method”; a symbol which is defined to have a certain meaning understood by sender and recipient so that the sender understands what it’s asking be done, and the recipient knows what it’s being asked to do. A recipient which doesn’t understand what is being asked of it cannot process the message for hopefully obvious reasons.
What Sanjiva’s talking about there is ambiguity as a feature of Web services; that some recipients will interpret a message to mean one thing, while others another. Note that this is very different than what the recipients actually do in response to the message; that can and should, obviously, vary. But varying interpretations of the meaning of the message? Absurd.