intertwingly

I thought the article did a pretty good job of covering the various points that have been kicked around, except that the statement "IBM itself does not support REST" might be taken to mean that "You can't use IBM tools to develop REST services". The Zap Think analyst brought up the point that without something you can buy (REST in a box), there's a fairly large contingent of developers, managers, and C?Os out there who'll never even consider it. Not that I'm arguing that's valid, but I think there's something to that.

The article presented SOAP and REST as being advocated by two different "camps" - a categorization which is largely accurate.

It then positioned me in one of those camps (in presumed opposition to IBM's wishes). This I found amusing.

A RESTful approach to Web services: "REST relies on a single application protocol (HTTP), universal resource indicators (URI) and standardized data formats, through XML. It employs established HTTP methods such... [more]

Trackback from snellspace

Apparently I don't understand REST: I thought it was simply a methodology associated with implementing webservices. Instead of sending all the content in one big gob, you send links to the content, which can be selected for further processing. It has a few other standard requirements, like explicit declaration of cacheability and statelessness. Why is everyone (*evil grin*) so excited?... [more]

Trackback from Sterling Hughes

Advocating a new approach?. It is amusing to see that Network World views me as a REST backer. Thanks go out to Dave Chappell for forwarding me this link. [Sam Ruby] Why is it always pitched as REST vs SOAP, when you can use REST and SOAP ...

Pingback from Simon Fell > Its just code : Wednesday, March 05, 2003

So Network World put together this article without even contacting you?

David, I was totally unaware of this article until Dave Chappell mentioned it to me.

Integrity in Reporting, gotta love it.

maybe they just meant that you are RESTful? ;-)