Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4429RE: [rest-discuss] Re-using information fields for queries in REST

Expand Messages
  • David Orchard
    Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been looking at how map an xml tree into the path and same depth
      params into the forms, ala
      <Music><Artist><Name>ThieveryCorp</Name><Rating>5</Rating></Artist></Mus
      ic>

      gets mapped into something like GET /Music/Artist?Name=ThieveryCorp and
      GET /Music/Artist/Rating?Name=ThieveryCorp

      Mixed ns are a pain, but if you adopt the convention that the ns decls
      are somehow in the algorithm, then it gets a little bit more managable.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@...]
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:38 PM
      > To: David Orchard
      > Cc: rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] Re-using information fields for queries in
      > REST
      >
      >
      > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:47:54PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
      > > Gotcha on the use of hierarchy rather than flat where appropriate.
      > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@...]
      > >
      > > <snip/>
      > > > Anyway, we are talking about resource discovery over arbitrary
      > > > data categories, and hence non-hierarchical in nature. There is
      > > > nothing wrong with telling the client how it can form URI's,
      > > > assuming that such a function doesn't change much over time.
      > > > Again, for cache reasons, I prefer methods of telling the client
      > > > to use the template
      > > >
      > > > http://example.com/quotes/${exchange}/${symbol}
      > > >
      > > > rather than the template
      > > >
      > > > http://example.com/quotes?market=${exchange}&symbol=${symbol}
      > > >
      > > > There is nothing stopping WSDL-like technology from defining
      > > > both of these mechanisms.
      > > >
      > > > ....Roy
      > > >
      > >
      > > Hey, now there's an idea. Maybe even official WSDL technology...
      >
      > *groan* Ok, sure, *now* you support my "make WSDL more form-like"
      > suggestions. 8-)
      >
      > The new HTTP binding goes further in this direction, but still falls
      > short largely because it bumps up against the *very* different demands
      > of a forms language compared with an interface description language.
      >
      > I'd personally prefer to start over with a forms language, which is
      > why I created RDF Forms; http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/05/RDF-Forms/ .
      > But it has a bit of legacy in its support of www-form-urlencoded
      > serializations for POST bodies and URIs largely because that's what
      > server APIs easily support and it's what I used at work. But I'd love
      > to get a more general generative naming language in there that could
      > support hierarchy as Roy describes.
      >
      > Mark.
      > --
      > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic