Thanks to Dilip Ranganathan for bringing these links to my notice:
http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2008/01/17/rest-vs-soap-the-personal-cost/
http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/01/19/many-thanks-mark/
http://lesscode.org/2006/03/19/rest-wins-noone-goes-home/
I'm really sorry to hear of Mark Baker's health being affected by all this "war" nonsense, and I can deeply empathise, because I've been doing similar evangelism for Linux and Open Source in the past, and suffered personally because people just didn't get it. (And now that Linux and Open Source have become mainstream, gone fashionable even, there's nary an acknowledgement of my early vision. "Oh, yes, Open Source has matured now (condescension, condescension)". I tell you, it hurts.)
Mark, if it's any consolation, there are individuals you may not even know about, who are grateful to you for your efforts. I've myself come to this debate rather late, but I'm happy that so much work has been done to bring the world a needed alternative.
But I wonder, what do Bill, Mark and Steve mean when they say "REST has won"?
Well, if they mean "REST has been accepted as a legitimate way to build distributed applications", then yes, I agree. Correction: I would say, it's well-known, but not yet universally accepted, but it deserves all the support it needs to get there. I'm the first to argue that REST is a beautifully elegant way to do simple things. Just look at the Blinksale REST API.
If they mean "REST has won over SOAP", I'm afraid I'm not seeing that at all. There are people in my own bank, SOA practitioners no less, who haven't even heard of REST. They're happily building systems using SOAP and WSDL and claiming great improvements in productivity! They're not lying either. So if the REST folk think SOAP is going to die quietly, they're very sadly mistaken.
(I feel a bit schizophrenic at times. With REST folk, I'm the skeptic, asking why it's a better model than SOAP messaging and raising uncomfortable questions around REST limitations. To people who are happily ensconced in their SOAP ivory towers, I'm the furtive revolutionary, going, "Psst! Have you heard of this really simple, elegant approach to SOA called REST? Have a look. You may find you could use it in many areas, and you may find it simpler and cheaper to implement.")
I like REST a lot, but I think it needs a bit more critical analysis around what it can't do well. I see a lot of religious fervour about REST, which is probably as bad as dogmatic opposition. And I think there needs to be a "SOAP Take 2", where some of the obviously bad ideas in WS-* get weeded out and the fundamental message-oriented paradigm is better implemented. I think we're moving towards a future where we have both, - a more capable REST and a more elegant SOAP.
I'm going to be blogging about some of these issues soon. Stay tuned.
http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2008/01/17/rest-vs-soap-the-personal-cost/
http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/01/19/many-thanks-mark/
http://lesscode.org/2006/03/19/rest-wins-noone-goes-home/
I'm really sorry to hear of Mark Baker's health being affected by all this "war" nonsense, and I can deeply empathise, because I've been doing similar evangelism for Linux and Open Source in the past, and suffered personally because people just didn't get it. (And now that Linux and Open Source have become mainstream, gone fashionable even, there's nary an acknowledgement of my early vision. "Oh, yes, Open Source has matured now (condescension, condescension)". I tell you, it hurts.)
Mark, if it's any consolation, there are individuals you may not even know about, who are grateful to you for your efforts. I've myself come to this debate rather late, but I'm happy that so much work has been done to bring the world a needed alternative.
But I wonder, what do Bill, Mark and Steve mean when they say "REST has won"?
Well, if they mean "REST has been accepted as a legitimate way to build distributed applications", then yes, I agree. Correction: I would say, it's well-known, but not yet universally accepted, but it deserves all the support it needs to get there. I'm the first to argue that REST is a beautifully elegant way to do simple things. Just look at the Blinksale REST API.
If they mean "REST has won over SOAP", I'm afraid I'm not seeing that at all. There are people in my own bank, SOA practitioners no less, who haven't even heard of REST. They're happily building systems using SOAP and WSDL and claiming great improvements in productivity! They're not lying either. So if the REST folk think SOAP is going to die quietly, they're very sadly mistaken.
(I feel a bit schizophrenic at times. With REST folk, I'm the skeptic, asking why it's a better model than SOAP messaging and raising uncomfortable questions around REST limitations. To people who are happily ensconced in their SOAP ivory towers, I'm the furtive revolutionary, going, "Psst! Have you heard of this really simple, elegant approach to SOA called REST? Have a look. You may find you could use it in many areas, and you may find it simpler and cheaper to implement.")
I like REST a lot, but I think it needs a bit more critical analysis around what it can't do well. I see a lot of religious fervour about REST, which is probably as bad as dogmatic opposition. And I think there needs to be a "SOAP Take 2", where some of the obviously bad ideas in WS-* get weeded out and the fundamental message-oriented paradigm is better implemented. I think we're moving towards a future where we have both, - a more capable REST and a more elegant SOAP.
I'm going to be blogging about some of these issues soon. Stay tuned.
