I've heard a lot of good things about REST (Representational State Transfer). Apparently REST represents a distributed computing architectural pattern that brings simplicity and consistency to the WEB. Well at least that is what I have been lead to believe. Anyway I've finally found a description of REST, that I can understand.
After reading through the description (and it is quite lengthy) I was somewhat disappointed. I'm not sure why, but some how I was expecting more. I come from a telecoms background and I am pretty familiar with network protocols and communications. I remember reading the GSM protocols for the first time, I was immediately impressed. GSM is a very complex system with a number of orthogonal protocols that work together to address the various issues associated with a single application, mobile voice and data services. After reading the REST description, I was left thinking what is this architecture meant to do? What problem is it meant to solve?
This seems to be the key issue. With the exception of hyper-links, there doesn't appear to be a generic web application, instead their is a number of disparate applications that happen to share the HTTP protocol (out of convenience) and URIs as a common addressing mechanism. REST some how tries to come up with an architectural pattern that addresses all these disparate needs, and in the end becomes so unspecific it is almost meaningless (IMHO).
The only benefit I can see, is that it dissuades extensions to the web that are not consistent with good network communications practice. It appears to be an attempt to limit some of the network protocol abuses that have characterised the web from its inception.
What is missing is specific protocols for specific applications. For example, I once hoped that IIOP would become the established protocol for client/server applications over the Web. In my opinion HTTP is just inappropriate for such applications and if the W3C promoted an alternative I'm sure firewalls would be opened up (in the same way that ftp is accepted as the protocol for file transfer, telnet for terminals, POP3/STMP for mail etc).
In the article it talks about mobile code, but again nothing specific. I may be missing the point here, In which case can some one please enlighten me. I was hoping that REST would be the antidote to SOAP,UDDI,SOA etc Please tell me that my hope isn't misplaced.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Did you read chapter one of the dissertation first? That puts it all in context. Until you understand chapter one, you can't understand what REST implicitly says about Web services. For example, the cost of the architectural properties lost by rejecting the uniform interface constraint.
Your comment about IIOP vs. HTTP also suggested that you're missing something, in particular that those are different kinds of protocols. In chapter-one terms, HTTP constitutes a connector, while IIOP doesn't.
Hi Mark,
Thanxs for the comment. I do like the "uniform connector" idea and I like the "seperation of concerns". Kind of reminiscent of the ISO 7 layer model.
I'll take your advice and read chapter 1. A concrete example would help too. I will take a look at KnowHow from your website.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment