• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:44:57 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C69AC53.D8E64531@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <200202121806.NAA23065@m...> <E16alxF-0001OD-00@s...> <3C69AC53.D8E64531@p...>

On Tuesday 12 February 2002 06:59 pm, Paul Prescod wrote:
> "REST is defined by four interface constraints: identification of
> resources; manipulation of resources through representations;*
> self-descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of
> application state."
...
> If you don't like REST, that's okay. Propose another model.

The overall architecture is fine... the point I was trying to make is 
that if you don't know what you're going to get back when you ask for 
the representation of a resource, you have a problem. Abstract 
resources are an elegant idea, and very useful in some cases, but they 
*can* fail the test of least surprise.

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Streaming Transformations for XML
• Next by Date: RE: Names and locations (WAS: Why REST?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread