5037Re: [rest-discuss] The role of queries in REST?
- May 10, 2005Roger L. Costello wrote:
>Close enough, yes. Though I would not use the term 'Web site', since it
> Jan spoke about the importance of ensuring that clients are decoupled
> from a Web site. [Paraphrasing] If a client uses information about
> how a Web site structures its resources (i.e., the Web site's domain
> model) then the client is coupling itself to the Web site - if the Web
> site reorganizes its resources then the client's applications will
> break. [Jan, have I summarized your argument correctly?]
(IMHO) sort of implies 'resources are pages'.
>Hmm...no, I don't think so. I was talking about using domain model
> Isn't there a paradox here? On the one hand, identifiers to resources
> must be made available, else clients can't access the resources. On
> the other hand too much knowledge of resource identifiers leads to
knowledge for constructing queries, not
for constructing identifiers. Clients have to treat URIs as being
opaque, they must not *construct* URIs but may
only use URIs found in the retreived representations. (modulo GET forms,
aka Mark's 'indexable resources').
> In my original message I proposed that a Web site make visible toREST does not 'allow' any kind of identifier construction (IMHO).
> clients this hierarchical model of resources:
> My intent is that clients can utilize this hierarchical model to
> construct resource identifiers -
> a client can retrieve any resource in this hierarchy by simplyThat would mean that there is some kind of semantic alignment of the
> creating an XPath expression to the desired resource. For example, to
> retrieve BB06 in Plan2 the client would construct this identifier:
hierarchy relationship expressed in the example
representation (the semantics being defined in its MIME type) and the
(assumed?) hierarchy of path's in URIs.
I doubt that this can be derived from REST. What do others think?
>Definitely. Think about how persistent the constructed URIs is, given
> Has this Web site exposed too much of its model? Have I exposed too
> much of the rules for constructing resource identifiers? Will clients
> become dangerously coupled?
that it has not been uttered by the server but constructed
by the client. If the server changes the hierarchy, the URI becomes sort
of meaningless or wrong.
>There ain't no constructing of identifiers....
> To what level should the rules for constructing identifiers be exposed
> by a Web site?
> To what level should they be hidden? Is it the purpose of forms toI wonder if GET forms are RESTful at all? Are they?
> shield clients from the rules for constructing identifiers?
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
Jan Algermissen http://www.jalgermissen.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.tugboat.de
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>