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

Re: [rest-discuss] Re: This is REST

Expand Messages
  • Darrel Miller
    Here is an interesting survey of rel values in use on the web. http://blog.unto.net/web/a-survey-of-rel-values-on-the-web/ ... Yes the client must understand
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is an interesting survey of rel values in use on the web.

      http://blog.unto.net/web/a-survey-of-rel-values-on-the-web/
      Excerpt:
      >  found a staggering 1.8M unique rel value strings in use, with many used only once or
      > twice across all the web. In fact, the top 6 most-frequently-used rel values accounted
      > for 80% of all usage, and the top 11 alone were responsible for 90% of all usage.


      On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Ebenezer Ikonne <amaeze@...> wrote:
      >
      > Well in a sense they are, because the protocol exists in text that is outside of the client.
      > The client is not determining what "rel" inline, its programmed with a priori knowledge of the
      > transitions. provided by all "rel" values.
      >

      Yes the client must understand the media type before hand.  However
      the significant difference is that when the client follows a link, the
      media-type is in the header of the response.  The client knows how to
      parse the message based only on the content of the message and its
      prior knowledge of the media type.  In so many so called "RESTful"
      API's that I see the client retrieves application/xml from endpoint
      http://site.org/xyz and it must know that the application/xml at this
      endpoint contains a specific vocabulary.

      Darrel
    • Ebenezer Ikonne
      ... I think we are in some agreement here. Now the debate for whether to use generic media-types versus specific media-types is slightly different (IMO). I
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > Yes the client must understand the media type before hand. �However
        > the significant difference is that when the client follows a link, the
        > media-type is in the header of the response. �The client knows how to
        > parse the message based only on the content of the message and its
        > prior knowledge of the media type. �In so many so called "RESTful"
        > API's that I see the client retrieves application/xml from endpoint
        > http://site.org/xyz and it must know that the application/xml at this
        > endpoint contains a specific vocabulary.
        >
        > Darrel
        >

        I think we are in some agreement here. Now the debate for whether to use generic media-types versus specific media-types is slightly different (IMO). I believe in specific media-types, but in both cases, a priori is still required. The flexibility of the client is severely hampered when using generic media-types.

        Eb
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.