Re: REST, Conversations and Reliability

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 03:48:34PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> But I'll decline the challenge to show proof of something that I'm hoping
> we're going to create.  I understand that you think we've tried and failed,
> but I think we have some new technology - like the web URIs, XML, SOAP,
> WSDL - as well as past experience that will help us.  And I think we can use
> these technologies in ways that loosely couple reliability to application
> semantics.

I just wanted to point out that some aspect of a reliability solution
may be reusable in a loosely coupled manner.  For example, message ids.
But a complete SOAP based reliability solution cannot be.

BTW, I just found this, a better description of the infamous "A Note on
Distributed Computing" paper than the paper itself provides (by Jim
Waldo, of course);

  "In particular, we argued that distributed infrastructures must
   present a model of partial failure to the programmer, since only at
   the application level can such failure be dealt with; must deal with
   concurrency issues, rather than leaving them to the infrastructure;
   and must at the application level realize what parts of the program
   are local and what parts are at least potentially remote."

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:CbFghclKzoMC:research.sun.com/features/tenyears/volcd/papers/intros/I5Waldo.pdf+waldo+note+on+distributed+computing&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               [email protected]
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com