19678Re: [rest-discuss] RESTful Toggle
- Jul 9, 2014+1: as long as you're resource-oriented (meaning you're POSTing to the
resource to be toggled, rather than a general toggle-whatever-service),
everything is fine.
On 2014-07-09, 18:02 , Keith P Hassen wrote:
> Definitely not a departure, as Erik mentioned I think there is a common
> misconception around the use of POST (it offers no guarantees). You
> wouldn't need to POST to /command, rather, you would POST to
> /togglablethingy with a body of, for example, "toggle=true".
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM, 'Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)'
> robby.simpson@... <mailto:robby.simpson@...> [rest-discuss]
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> Hi Erik!
> On 7/9/14, 11:39 AM, "Erik Wilde" <dret@...
> <mailto:dret@...>> wrote:
> >hello robby.
> >On 2014-07-09, 17:29 , 'Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)'
> >robby.simpson@... <mailto:robby.simpson@...> [rest-discuss]
> >> This particular issue has arisen in the design of home automation
> >>systems. Specifically, I'm working in a standards body (the ZigBee
> >>Alliance) that has classically used a binary protocol that does not
> >>really adhere to any true architectural design (IMHO). I've been
> >>engaged in work that started in ZigBee and has now moved to IEEE
> >>(2030.5) that (attempts to) rigidly stick to a RESTful HTTP
> design. One
> >>request that has come up is to port toggle switch capability to this
> >>standard. Home automation manufacturers have actually implemented
> >>toggle switches this way in the past (see
> >it sounds like the scenario we were talking about, that all you
> want is
> >to tell the resource to "reverse its state". in this case, i'd POST a
> >body that represents this request, in whatever serialization you
> >to prefer. the resource toggles. everybody's happy.
> OK. Still seems like a bit of a departure from typical RESTful
> I've seen and has the potential to be a catch-all tunnel for RPC-style
> /command, where one could POST all sorts of commands like "toggle."
> >but i am confused because you wrote earlier that you were concerned
> >about race conditions. which seems to imply that instead of just
> >toggling, you're also assuming that you're "toggling *from* some
> >but that wouldn't be the "blind toggle" we discussed. could you
> >a bit how exactly the operation that you're trying to design is
> Apologies, a blind toggle is what is desired. As it currently works, in
> the current binary protocol, a button press on a toggle switch simply
> sends a "toggle" command.
> >erik wilde | mailto:dret@... <mailto:dret@...> -
> tel:+1-510-2061079 <tel:%2B1-510-2061079> |
> > | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
> > | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
erik wilde | mailto:dret@... - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>