Re: WSA constraints

Mark Baker <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:23:03AM -0700, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > For example, there's an implicit requirement that Web 
> > services will work
> > between companies, which requires the property of "visibility" (unlike
> > working within companies, which doesn't).  We need to identify which
> > constraints of the WSA induce this property.
> > 
> 
> I think this is reasonable, but don't follow completely.  The way I envision
> it, the REST constraints might identify a "bootstrappable" (maybe what you
> mean by "visible") way for Web service providers and consumers to do
> business in a very loosely coupled way.

Yes, I think we're in synch there.  "late/dynamic binding", etc..

>  Of course, that meets some of our
> requirements, but doesn't describe the most typical scenarios in which Web
> services are actually used today.  Thus, we could/should document the REST
> constraints as one aspect of the WSA, with appropriate language about it MAY
> be the optimal approach when its assumptions are met.

Excellent!  I'm happy to start there.

A next step would be to document WSA constraints, right?  The last
time I proposed this[1], I suggested the following constraints as a
starting point;

- layered
- client/server
- XML messages

There was some initial objection to the first two, but I believe I
addressed those concerns.  The third was suggested by DaveO.

> > But I'd like to defer this until we've documented some constraints.
> 
> Perhaps, but induction of what you're proposing from examples would help
> too.

Sure.  Using the lightbulb example from my "REST Compared" presentation
[2], I can reliably coordinate the following tasks with a remote
lightbulb;

1) determining the state of the lightbulb; invoke GET until I get a
response

2) turning the lightbulb on or off; invoke PUT until I get a successful
response

That's a very simple example, as it doesn't use POST, which is the tough
method to deal with because it's not idempotent.  But it's a good start
to describe how tasks can be coordinated, even though individual GET and
PUT messages could be lost.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Sep/thread.html#133
 [2] http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/08/Rest/

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.