Re: [rest-discuss] RESTful URLs?
- On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:02:59PM -0600, Hugh Winkler wrote:
> Yep. If your URLs describe a suite of actions, with parameters in theI think you've thrown the baby out with the bath water.
> query string, then you're just building a RPC application. You're
> defining a custom interface for making your app do things, rather than
> sticking to the uniform interface defined by HTTP.
URIs are opaque. That means that, technically, it doesn't matter what you use at
all. You could design the most insanely RESTful interface using only verbs for
your URIS, or using GUIDs. I think the important piece of advice would be that
you should strongly consider why you want to use verbs in the first place, given
the HTTP method is already doing that for you.
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
- One of this things I find I often confront is the "dis-comfort" folks
experience when they identify the "inefficiency of abstraction" that
is the result of the loose coupling in the REST style.
I usually address this comfort the same way I address the "premature
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 07:54, Bill de hOra <bill@...> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Bill de hOra wrote:
>> > Also, hypertext for simple case tends to need two calls, one the
>> > bootstrap document to find the link, and two, to the actual link you
>> > care about. Whereas a fixed url scheme on the client means one call.
>> Yes, a RESTful system is at least one level of indirection away
>> from a strongly coupled system. A fixed URL scheme is essentially
>> the same as baking the first representation into each client.
> Right. I think some people, when thinking about bootstrap problems
> (which is what we're talking about here), end up in logical knots and
> fallacies, or worse, invent pointless discovery technologies to solve a
> non-problem. The first link is always out of band, get over it.
>> Is that surprising?
> Obviously not, but it seemed fair to point it out.
> Yahoo! Groups Links