RE: Myth of loose coupling
"Jean-Jacques Dubray" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <000e01c2b728$3bd42950$0502a8c0@JJD> |
Mike et al: It would certainly help to elevate the debate at the metamodel level and establish a mapping to technological concepts such as GET, URI and POST. A picture being worth more than a thousand words on this list, I would suggest to illustrate it with UML class diagrams. Jean-Jacques >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>Behalf Of Champion, Mike >>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:57 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: Myth of loose coupling >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:39 AM >>> To: Walden Mathews >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Myth of loose coupling >>> >>> >>> >>> +1. I was going to respond to Mike, but this says more or less what I >>> wanted to say. >>> >>> Though I detest the expression, there really is a "paradigm shift" to >>> understanding why GET+URI is superior to POST+method. For most people >>> coming from a CORBA/DCOM-like background (like myself), it takes a >>> "eureka moment", if you know what I mean. >> >>Well, I considered myself a RESTifarian until I realized that y'all wanted >>me accept the catechism that included the "uniform interface constraint" >>and >>the categorical superiority of URIs over XML :-) Again, these are tools >>that engineers can use to optimize solutions that are adapted to specific >>problems, IMHO. I much appreciate the work that RESTifarians have done to >>educate people on the limitations of the RPC paradigm over the Internet >>and >>on the desiriability of fully leveraging the Web rather than just >>tunneling >>a bunch of stuff through port 80. I see that more of a kick in the shins >>than a religious epiphany, however.