Re: REST has too many verbs
On Monday 11 February 2002 04:16 pm, Paul Prescod wrote: > That's a rhetorical strategy that won't work. Whatever virtues we > point out of REST, RPC people will point out that you can do the > same thing in RPC if you just structure your method calls right. For > instance you could use a few verbs, as REST does. You could make > them generic, as REST does. You could always pass a URI as the first > argument. You could build client-side messages as XML documents and > pass them through RPC as content-bodies, as HTTP does. etc. You > could reinvent it all in a new syntax two levels above HTTP. And it > would work. Actually, I think Mike has pointed out the key here though: REST is an *architecture*. If you used RPC to *implement* REST, it would be just as well be called REST as REST using HTTP. I think that is a crucial point. 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. This really reminds me of the DOM days.... people can't see the architecture for the implementation, or the implementation for the problem domain.
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