5836Re: [rest-discuss] RESTful representation of nouns?
- Apr 5, 2006Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> Thanks, Nic, Roy. The fog is clearing slightly. :-) The key issue/mydocument.html/pdf
> appears to be:
> On Apr 5, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > OTOH, a translation service like
> > /convert?format=pdf
> > can simply be a POST of file-upload with the response being the
> > converted representation.
> >> However, that doesn't seem very RESTful.
> > Why? POST is RESTful too, when it is used correctly.
> This is what confuses me. My (naive) understanding is that every URI
> represents a noun, that is, a resource. The URL:
> seems like it represents a verb, especially when given parameters:
> or even when given other nouns:
> So, if I read Roy correctly, the service described by that URL is --
> or at least could be -- RESTful. Does this mean that the belief "URLs
> must represent nouns" is a complete myth? Or is there something else
> going on here?
Alternative if the service is on the same domain. All */pdf patterns map
back to the code that renders out the pdf and take the rest of the
path. It's kinda idiomatic for some frameworks to centralise the service
under one url and take other urls as arguments not because of any design
considerations or separation of concerns but because the URL dispatching
is optimised for certain patterns that end up looking servicey.
Let's not mix up my name with what I do.
It's more than verb tunneling. One can then argue that putting conneg
crap in the URL is no better than putting verbal crap in there.
re services. If your service runs on it's domain and in spirit accepts
urls as arguments, then it's probably really a "service" (in the sense
that a translation house is a service). Technorati is an example of
service that fits the seperations of concerns idea (except it gives you
backlinks instead of PDFs).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>