Re: REST has too many verbs
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > >... > > The REST *architecture* has merits for some classes of problem, no > doubt about it. I don't think anyone would claim that it is applicable > to *all* classes of problem. REST over HTTP is equally usable for some > subset of the problem domain to which REST is applicable, and equally, > I don't think anyone would claim that it is applicable to *all* REST > problems. My position is that HTTP is like XML. They aren't good for all problems. Both of them, in particular, could have performance issues in certain circumstances. They aren't ideal for all problems. In fact, they aren't ideal for ANY problems because a custom-designed protocol or markup language will always be more compact and convenient than a generalized one. On the other hand, both XML and HTTP are generalized enough that they cover a vast tract of the application space. XML covers all labelled trees. HTTP covers all manipulation (GETting, PUTting and extending) of named resources. Just as you think that HTTP is trivial (or overcomplicated) here, they think XML is trivial (or overcomplicated) in the protocols mailing lists. That's okay with me. Time will tell. I think they are wasting their time when they try to reinvent XML (as they constantly do). I think people are wasting their time here when they try to reinvent HTTP. But it's your time. You and Simon can design your 0-verb XML language and we'll compare and contrast. Paul Prescod
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format