On 10/16/13 4:23 PM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> Seems pretty coherent so far. I think maybe part of your discomfort
> with REST in this context is that it requires standardization of the
> data interchanged across the boundaries?
Actually, part of my fondness for REST lies in its not requiring data
standardization. That's been a part of what people (mistakenly IMHO) do
with REST, but it's not central to the approach.
The problem is more that REST is about manipulating resources than about
flow through a pipeline. I know REST is flexible enough to handle most
everything, but I'm not convinced it's actually a natural fit.
> If so, you may want to explore
> to what extent that is true since REST is an obvious target, even with
> the single Enterprise, at least at the higher levels of granularity (as
> evidenced by Amazon WS for example). That could still give you a
> consistent story (and an interesting one in and of itself): the more
> granular you go the less formal the needs of the interchange format.
> So, between Enterprises you (well at least some people) might even
> allow for XSD and their ilk, but within an application you get closer to
> Unix pipes. etc.
Actually, I'm pretty sure at this point that the computing world needs
the opposite of that. Tighter specifications inside of applications,
looser connections between them (and between organizations).
Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
