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

4431Re: Re-using information fields for queries in REST

Expand Messages
  • thompsonbry
    Jun 2, 2004
      In the category of "never post before coffee", forget my remarks
      about caching GET with a request entity.

      However, I am interested in the relevance of this discussion to
      XForms and GET.

      -bryan

      --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "thompsonbry" <thompsonbry@s...>
      wrote:
      > This sounds very relevant to how XForms could use GET.
      >
      > I am assuming that we want the stronger constraint of
      > bookmarkability, right? Not just caching?
      >
      > So that we are not talking about GET with a request body (which
      could
      > perhaps be made cachable, e.g., using "Vary") but a means of
      mapping
      > an XML document (which could be just a property set for flat vs
      > hierarchical addressing) into a URI.
      >
      > E.g., a "application/iriencoded-xml" MIME type.
      >
      > -bryan
      >
      > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "David Orchard" <orchard@p...>
      > wrote:
      > > 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></M
      > us
      > > 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@a...]
      > > > 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@g...]
      > > > >
      > > > > <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