On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 10:24 -0700, Bob La Quey wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 09:14 -0700, Bob La Quey wrote: >> >> > So, SMTP qualifies as loosely coupled because you can replace either >> >> > side of >> >> > the system (MUA or MTA) and it still works. Similarly, web servers and >> >> > clients. >> >> >> >> Correct the WWW is loosely coupled, because HTTP is stateless. >> > >> > So let's follow this to its logical conclusion: >> > >> > - Since it wouldn't add state, if I added a requirement to HTTP that all >> > requests must be sent in HDF5 format and all responses must be sent as >> > Word documents (but the server can send back documents from any version >> > of Word ever made), that wouldn't make it more tightly coupled? >> >> The requirement is external to HTTP, which other than providing the >> correct response to the request does not care from shot to shot what >> is being done in the backend. > > I'm talking about if you changed the protocol so that was part of the > requirement. > >> Now somewhere in the back end complex code will be running that >> converts the HDF5 request into a Word document. But that is not part >> of HTTP as we know it. > > Agreed, but the change would, according to the logic expressed here, not > increase the coupling of the protocol.
Yeh. But it would not be HTTP. My comments originally were about HTTP. If I am talking about one thing and you say well change it into this thing then I certainly do not expect this new thing that you are introducing necessarily to have the same properties as the thing I am talking about. >> > - No matter how many different response codes, commands, encodings, >> > schemas, mandatory behaviors, etc., we add to HTTP, so long as we don't >> > add more state, it'd be loosely coupled? >> >> Yep, if by it=HTTP. > > That is what I meant. > I am simply shocked that someone would state this. I don't know how to > respond. I find it useful when writing this sort of screed to constantly replace pronouns with the nouns the point to in order to eliminate confusion. Clarity in my mind as to what noun that I am pointing the pronoun toward is not clarity in the mind of the person with whom I am trying (are you trying?) to communicate. >> > - The WWW is loosely coupled, so it is trivial to write a client that >> > actually works with Yahoo mail. >> >> Yahoo mail is full of Javascript. I suppose I should qualify and say >> by WWW I meant "old school" pure HTTP. > > Yahoo mail is full of Javascript. It does add some state to the client, > but apparently AJAX-y state isn't such a bad thing, and most of what it > does is impose a fairly complex execution model. So, the theory being > advanced here is that adding all that DOESN'T increase coupling, and to > that I say BS. That is not the theory being advanced here. I have been simply pointing to the properties of HTTP as we know it as defined in RFC 2616. Now you say, "If HTTP were something else HTTP would be different." Well, Duh! You are not stupid. I am not stupid. But this is stupid argument. We are talking right past each other. I have neither the time, energy or interest though to persist in straightening it (the argument) out. Regards, BobLQ -- KPLUG-LPSG@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
