Re: REST & types
> I see type safety as being orthogonal to REST. I was just talking about the time at which the client becomes aware of the finer grained type that it's dealing with (i.e. beyond the generic thing that supports GET/PUT/POST/DELETE), not any type of safety mechanism. > That's why I'm creating > WRDL. If you want type safety, you should get it. If you don't, you can > just ignore WRDL. By "type" in this context, I mean rdf:type. WRDL doesn't help me there. If I was told that a resource was an email inbox, but didn't know what an email inbox was, I might still be able to find out that an email inbox is a subclass of some generic container, so I'd know that I could POST to it because of that. I think there's value in knowing *why* something accepts PUT or POST, rather than the simple fact that it does, which is available at runtime anyhow by just poking at it with HTTP. Not that there isn't value in WRDL, it's just interesting to see what can be done a level up. It could be a very useful level for developers too, at least those used to component based programming. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@p... http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
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