19276Re: [rest-discuss] conneg considered harmful
- Feb 15, 2013
Most of those don't talk about why using content negotiation is bad in general. Instead they talk about how truly different resources should have their own uris even if they are variants of one another (eg articles about the same subject written in different human languages). That seems very reasonable. However, those arguments don't apply to situations where multiple, truly mechanically translatable, representations of a single resource exist.
One of those mention that conneg has a negative effect on caching. Is being harder to cache the only ill effect of sever driven conneg?
Barelyenough.orgOn Feb 15, 2013 3:31 PM, "Alan Dean" <alan.dean@...> wrote:
Perhaps it is worth referencing some other other Fielding quotes on the subject:Regards,
Alan DeanOn Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Peter Williams <pezra@...> wrote:
That is an interesting quote. I have occasionally heard
unsubstantiated claims regarding the badness of accept header based
content negotiation. It is interesting that Roy perceives it as
Personally, i rather like it but perhaps i am missing something
important. I'd definitely like to hear someone (or multiple someones)
actually articulate what they perceive as problematic about it. So far
i don't recall ever reading a discussion of the downsides that got
beyond "i don't like it" or "it is hard for me to implement" (neither
of which resonate with me).Mark, can you explain a bit more why you think this? It is not clear
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Eric J. Bowman eric@...> wrote:
> Mark Baker wrote:
>> Besides, client driven uses hypermedia so is way more RESTful.
to me why avoiding this particular part of http's uniform interface
would make a client more RESTful.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>