« Lights on at Catalyst 2007 | Main | Mapping Web 2.0 Together »

May 30, 2007


Mike Pittaro


It's nice to see an accurate description of REST as an architectural style rather than an API or some other simplification. This opens up the opportunity to frame the debate in terms of application architecture. The true debate is between REST and RPC (including Corba, DCOM, and WS-*) architectures.

One could argue REST *was* the next big thing, as seen in the success of the Web. However, the reference implementation has been primarily user to machine interactions. It seems the next big thing is really 'REST for machine to machine interactions'. We're beginning to see a more REST adoption in this area, and the use of standards like Atom and RDF is helping.

Javier Cámara

To me, this does not make sense. WS-* may have a number of overcomplexities, but on the other hand REST is bare bones. Lots of things have to be made for REST to get to the state WS-* is now.

All I want is INTEROPERABILITY, really. I really do not care about whether it is WS-* or REST. But since I see WS-* really far much advanced than REST, I see changing now to REST is going backwards some 3-4 years.

Why? Because some religious-like belief? The main point lying behind REST is it that it is more elegant. Any real benefit out there that can be justified e.g. to a Sales Manager?

I do not see the point at all.

Alex James


I couldn't agree more "REST is not the same as HTTP" infact I have a rant about this very topic on my blog...


The comments to this entry are closed.

  • Burton Group Free Resources Stay Connected Stay Connected Stay Connected Stay Connected

Blog powered by Typepad