[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [saf] Some work on the interfaces
Hi, REST is too important to leave to chance, especially if we
want to see an eco-system of open source and other reference implementations
and POCs. I suggest a layered approach. Define the abstraction in the main
spec. The REST implementation/binding could be defined in an appendix (slight
preference) or separate document. I suspect there won’t be a rush to define WS bindings.
:-) Just one man’s opinion. Thanks, Paul Paul Lipton VP, Industry Standards and Open Source Member, CA Council for Technical Excellence Phone (preferred number!): +1 215 867-9231 Mobile: +1 267 987-6887 Email: paul.lipton@ca.com THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED OR OTHER LEGALLY
PROTECTED INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE ADDRESSEE ONLY. IF YOU ARE NOT
THE ADDRESSEE (OR SOMEONE THE ADDRESSEE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE),
YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM COPYING, DISTRIBUTING OR OTHERWISE USING IT. PLEASE
NOTIFY THE SENDER AND RETURN IT AT OUR COST. THANK YOU. From:
Stavros.Isaiadis@uk.fujitsu.com [mailto:Stavros.Isaiadis@uk.fujitsu.com] Hi all, Attached a very preliminary draft of a REST-like interface.
Some questions to the TC: -
Should we mandate a specific interface approach (e.g.
WS, REST) or shall we just abstractly define necessary operations and then suggest
how these can be implemented in REST or WS in appendices? -
Should this interface text be on the main spec or in a
separate document? I haven't added this to the document folder yet, waiting for
discussion first. With something like this in place, we can build a
straightforward REST-like interface for quick POCs and demos on top of our SAF
implementation (which is currently WS-based and a little bit hard to use :-)) Cheers, Stavros -- Fujitsu
Laboratories of Europe
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]