[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: REST has too many verbs

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: REST has too many verbs
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:46:32 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C68E697.C5B17230@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <1013451210.845.127.camel@l...> <E16aNkh-0000Q3-00@s...> <3C68E697.C5B17230@p...>

On Tuesday 12 February 2002 04:55 am, Paul Prescod wrote:
> Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > Have you considered doing so? Seems to me that BEEP would do
> > rather well as part of an implementation of the REST
> > architecture... certainly no worse than HTTP.
>
> Roy claims he spent five years, working full-time at the W3C, tuning
> REST and HTTP: "The first edition of REST was developed between
> October 1994 and August 1995, primarily as a means for communicating
> Web concepts as we wrote the HTTP/1.0 specification and the initial
> HTTP/1.1 proposal. 

Right, but he
   a) wasn't by any means alone.
   b) wasn't the person with the final say
   c) wasn't working from REST with an blank slate. 

> I see nothing in BEEP that indicates that has built upon those years
> of work. It doesn't even claim to be a protocol at the same level of
> the protocol stack as HTTP.

That's right. A different implementation strategy.... maybe a bit more 
work, but a bit cleaner perhaps. Tying REST to HTTP does it a 
disservice.

• References:
  • REST has too many verbs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: REST and HTTP extensions (was Re: Re: Why REST? )
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
• Previous by thread: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Next by thread: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread