REST vs. WS-*: War is Over (If You Want It)
David Chappell, Blog
To anybody who's paying attention and who's not a hopeless partisan,
the war between REST and WS-* is over. The war ended in a truce rather
than crushing victory for one side -- it's Korea, not World War II.
The now-obvious truth is that both technologies have value, and both
will be used going forward. If you doubt this, take a look at
Microsoft's forthcoming support for creating RESTful applications in
the next release of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). The official
Java world is also on board, with the impending creation of JAX-RS.
Since both worlds also have good support for the WS-* approach,
developers will be able to choose the approach that's best for a
particular application. Two big questions remain. The first is, What
exactly is REST? By far the best and clearest definition I've seen is
provided by RESTful Web Services, a wonderful book by Leonard Richardson
and Sam Ruby. If everybody can buy into the measures of RESTfulness
this book provides, we can all avoid lots of future arguments. As a
side benefit, it will let most of us get by without reading Roy
Fielding's PhD thesis, the canonical text on REST. The second question
is, When should each approach be used? Whatever partisans may claim,
neither technology is right for every situation. While hammering out
a true understanding of this will likely take some time, the basic
outlines are clear. A RESTful approach is a natural for data-oriented
applications that focus on create/read/update/delete scenarios. Lots
and lots of apps fit this model, especially on the public Internet. A
solution based on WS-* makes more sense for service/method-oriented
applications, especially those that need more advanced behaviors such
as transactions and more-than-basic security.
http://www.davidchappell.com/blog/2007/06/rest-vs-ws-war-is-over-if-you-want-it.html
See also JAX-RS, the Java API for RESTful Web Services: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=311
David Chappell, Blog
To anybody who's paying attention and who's not a hopeless partisan,
the war between REST and WS-* is over. The war ended in a truce rather
than crushing victory for one side -- it's Korea, not World War II.
The now-obvious truth is that both technologies have value, and both
will be used going forward. If you doubt this, take a look at
Microsoft's forthcoming support for creating RESTful applications in
the next release of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). The official
Java world is also on board, with the impending creation of JAX-RS.
Since both worlds also have good support for the WS-* approach,
developers will be able to choose the approach that's best for a
particular application. Two big questions remain. The first is, What
exactly is REST? By far the best and clearest definition I've seen is
provided by RESTful Web Services, a wonderful book by Leonard Richardson
and Sam Ruby. If everybody can buy into the measures of RESTfulness
this book provides, we can all avoid lots of future arguments. As a
side benefit, it will let most of us get by without reading Roy
Fielding's PhD thesis, the canonical text on REST. The second question
is, When should each approach be used? Whatever partisans may claim,
neither technology is right for every situation. While hammering out
a true understanding of this will likely take some time, the basic
outlines are clear. A RESTful approach is a natural for data-oriented
applications that focus on create/read/update/delete scenarios. Lots
and lots of apps fit this model, especially on the public Internet. A
solution based on WS-* makes more sense for service/method-oriented
applications, especially those that need more advanced behaviors such
as transactions and more-than-basic security.
http://www.davidchappell.com/blog/2007/06/rest-vs-ws-war-is-over-if-you-want-it.html
See also JAX-RS, the Java API for RESTful Web Services: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=311
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario