• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: REST has too many verbs
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:52:01 -0800
• References: <1013451210.845.127.camel@l...> <3C68021A.98D28BF1@p...> <1013454682.1027.143.camel@l...> <E16aL5C-0003Jv-00@s...>

Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 12:40, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > REST doesn't adore HTTP. It's the other way around. HTTP 1.1 was
> > designed as a protocol for REST. ;)
> 
> Even Roy doesn't claim this. He claims that HTTP 1.1 was *guided* by
> REST.

These distinctions are getting too fine for me to cut with my kitchen
knives and I've misplaced my laser. REST is the architecture he wanted
to implement. HTTP is the protocol he designed to do so. HTTP is not the
perfect REST protocol any more than Java is the perfect OO programming
language. Still, the cost/benefit of inventing ANOTHER REST protocol
would probably not pan out, especially considering how extensible HTTP
is.

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Next by Date: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Previous by thread: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Next by thread: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread