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

REST Fan Types

Expand Messages
  • willmarpo
    Hello. Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old time discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so good, but I love
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 20, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello.
      Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old time discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so good, but I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.

      So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a classification I did two days ago while riding the bus to work. Silly? It may be, but I guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST usability and knowledge.

      API Makers: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually think REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
      Subcategories:
       - URI Jugglers. This are the ones that think REST is all about creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely focused on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
       - RPCers. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak RPC at all.
       - Exposers: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST is an API for exposing things on the web.
       - CRUDers: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for CRUD. Simple.

      Mappers: This other category may use the API idea, but they actually thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to map all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
       - CRUDers. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to HTTP operations, and that
      makes it RESTful.
       - HTTPers. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
       - Exposers. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems RESTful.

      FAD followers?
      : This is a group of the reminders of the types. Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
       - Standard Haters: Here you have all those that think Standards are evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
       - KISS lovers. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
       - Servicers. They think Services is good, and someone told them REST is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
       - BuzzWorders. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so they follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it. There are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST in WOA. No pun intended on REST-*

      Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that knows REST as it actually is and understands it. That may be a one person group (yes Roy).

      I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT saying they are good, at all.

      What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?

      William Martinez Pomares.
    • Jan Algermissen
      LOL I love: URI Jugglers ... have met some very insistent ones recently ... they are among the hardest to talk to :-) Jan ... Jan Algermissen Mail:
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 20, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        LOL

        I love: 'URI Jugglers' ... have met some very insistent ones
        recently ... they are among the hardest to talk to :-)

        Jan




        On Sep 20, 2009, at 5:12 PM, willmarpo wrote:

        >
        >
        > Hello.
        > Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old
        > time discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so
        > good, but I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.
        >
        > So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a
        > classification I did two days ago while riding the bus to work.
        > Silly? It may be, but I guess it helps understand where are we
        > standing in terms of REST usability and knowledge.
        >
        > API Makers: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not
        > built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually
        > think REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
        > Subcategories:
        > - URI Jugglers. This are the ones that think REST is all about
        > creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely
        > focused on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
        > - RPCers. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise
        > using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak RPC
        > at all.
        > - Exposers: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that
        > think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST is
        > an API for exposing things on the web.
        > - CRUDers: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for
        > CRUD. Simple.
        >
        > Mappers: This other category may use the API idea, but they actually
        > thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to
        > map all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
        > - CRUDers. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to
        > HTTP operations, and that
        > makes it RESTful.
        > - HTTPers. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
        > - Exposers. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data
        > entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems
        > RESTful.
        >
        > FAD followers?: This is a group of the reminders of the types.
        > Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
        > - Standard Haters: Here you have all those that think Standards are
        > evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do
        > whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
        > - KISS lovers. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And
        > someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things
        > with URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
        > - Servicers. They think Services is good, and someone told them
        > REST is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
        > - BuzzWorders. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so
        > they follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about
        > it. There are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST
        > in WOA. No pun intended on REST-*
        >
        > Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that
        > knows REST as it actually is and understands it. That may be a one
        > person group (yes Roy).
        >
        > I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT
        > saying they are good, at all.
        >
        > What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?
        >
        > William Martinez Pomares.
        >
        >
        >

        --------------------------------------
        Jan Algermissen

        Mail: algermissen@...
        Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
        Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
        --------------------------------------
      • Bill de hOra
        Assign a person to each of your stereotypes, let them and everyone else know. Still a good idea? Bill
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 20, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Assign a person to each of your stereotypes, let them and everyone else
          know.

          Still a good idea?

          Bill

          willmarpo wrote:
          >
          >
          > Hello.
          > Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old time
          > discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so good, but
          > I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.
          >
          > So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a classification
          > I did two days ago while riding the bus to work. Silly? It may be, but I
          > guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
          > usability and knowledge.
          >
          > *API Makers*: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not
          > built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually think
          > REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
          > /Subcategories:
          > / - *URI Jugglers*. This are the ones that think REST is all about
          > creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely focused
          > on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
          > - *RPCers*. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise
          > using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak RPC at all.
          > - *Exposers*: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that
          > think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST is an
          > API for exposing things on the web.
          > - *CRUDers*: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for
          > CRUD. Simple.
          >
          > *Mappers*: This other category may use the API idea, but they actually
          > thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to map
          > all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
          > - *CRUDers*. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to
          > HTTP operations, and that
          > makes it RESTful.
          > - *HTTPers*. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
          > - *Exposers*. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data
          > entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems RESTful.
          > *
          > FAD followers?*: This is a group of t he reminders of the types.
          > Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
          > - *Standard Haters*: Here you have all those that think Standards are
          > evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do
          > whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
          > - *KISS lovers*. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And
          > someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with
          > URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
          > - *Servicers*. They think Services is good, and someone told them REST
          > is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
          > - *BuzzWorders*. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so they
          > follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it. There
          > are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST in WOA. No pun
          > intended on REST-*
          >
          > Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that knows
          > REST as it actually is and understan ds it. That may be a one person
          > group (yes Roy).
          >
          > I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT
          > saying they are good, at all.
          >
          > What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?
          >
          > William Martinez Pomares.
          >
          >
        • William Martinez Pomares
          Hello Bill. Not sure of your intention with the comment. Sounds like disapprovement, due to the negative conception of the stereotype word. Not even sure of
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 22, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Bill.
            Not sure of your intention with the comment. Sounds like disapprovement, due to the negative conception of the "stereotype" word. Not even sure of your idea of my idea by writing the list.

            Let me state it again:
            "I love doing so sometimes (Naming things) to know what am I referring to"
            "I guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST usability and knowledge."

            I had been in hundreds of discussions. Most of the time, two people discuss about different things that are named the same. So, my first action is to clarify what I mean by that name. Just as I did now with my idea in the lines above.

            Ok, let's start again: I've created a classification of the common understandings people that I've read and discussed with, had shown related to REST. The intention is to identify how is the REST term used and understood. It makes no sense to put a face on each class, when we want common behavior for analysis.

            Sorry if taken as a bad thing. Not my intention.

            William.

            --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Bill de hOra <bill@...> wrote:
            >
            > Assign a person to each of your stereotypes, let them and everyone else
            > know.
            >
            > Still a good idea?
            >
            > Bill
            >
            > willmarpo wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > Hello.
            > > Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old time
            > > discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so good, but
            > > I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.
            > >
            > > So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a classification
            > > I did two days ago while riding the bus to work. Silly? It may be, but I
            > > guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
            > > usability and knowledge.
            > >
            > > *API Makers*: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not
            > > built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually think
            > > REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
            > > /Subcategories:
            > > / - *URI Jugglers*. This are the ones that think REST is all about
            > > creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely focused
            > > on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
            > > - *RPCers*. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise
            > > using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak RPC at all.
            > > - *Exposers*: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that
            > > think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST is an
            > > API for exposing things on the web.
            > > - *CRUDers*: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for
            > > CRUD. Simple.
            > >
            > > *Mappers*: This other category may use the API idea, but they actually
            > > thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to map
            > > all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
            > > - *CRUDers*. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to
            > > HTTP operations, and that
            > > makes it RESTful.
            > > - *HTTPers*. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
            > > - *Exposers*. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data
            > > entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems RESTful.
            > > *
            > > FAD followers?*: This is a group of t he reminders of the types.
            > > Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
            > > - *Standard Haters*: Here you have all those that think Standards are
            > > evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do
            > > whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
            > > - *KISS lovers*. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And
            > > someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with
            > > URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
            > > - *Servicers*. They think Services is good, and someone told them REST
            > > is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
            > > - *BuzzWorders*. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so they
            > > follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it. There
            > > are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST in WOA. No pun
            > > intended on REST-*
            > >
            > > Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that knows
            > > REST as it actually is and understan ds it. That may be a one person
            > > group (yes Roy).
            > >
            > > I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT
            > > saying they are good, at all.
            > >
            > > What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?
            > >
            > > William Martinez Pomares.
            > >
            > >
            >
          • António Mota
            I though your initial post was something like a humorous post, that the intention of it was to put a smile in everybody faces. Because otherwise it tends to
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 23, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I though your initial post was something like a "humorous" post, that
              the intention of it was to put a smile in everybody faces. Because
              otherwise it tends to be seen a little diminishing for everybody that
              falls in your categories.

              "They like buzz words, so they follow REST just because it is cool and
              all people talk about it."

              "someone told them REST is a way to do services without SOAP. So they
              follow..."

              "someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with URIs"

              "so they follow REST doing whatever they want."

              "They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough."

              "They think REST is a web api for CRUD. Simple."

              Now I appreciate a good irony when it is said... ironically. But now you
              say that this is not a "humorous" post but it should be taken literally,
              because "the intention is to identify how is the REST term used and
              understood." And we have to identify ourselves in one of the groups you
              mention, most of them "because it's cool", because "someone told then"
              and "so they follow", practically all of them described in terms that
              are either humorous or (xor) diminishing...

              I myself think I can fall in more than one group, but I prefer to think
              that is because I'm in a early stage of working with REST and I have
              lot's of things yet to grasp and little time to do it, and not just
              because I found REST cool and all people talk about it., or because
              someone told me something and I just follow, or because I'm shallow
              enough to believe REST is HTTP, or naive enough to think is simple
              CRUD... That would be to dismiss a person as of little intelligence, not
              to say other harsh words...

              Finally, do you really believe there is only a person that knows REST as
              it actually is and understands it, being that person Roy, or is that
              part irony/humorous? Because I don't belong to that particular group for
              sure, but to some people on this list that wrote lot's of good articles
              in blogs from which I learned a lot that is, at least, unfair...

              Not that I think your intention was that, of course.

              William Martinez Pomares wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hello Bill.
              > Not sure of your intention with the comment. Sounds like
              > disapprovement, due to the negative conception of the "stereotype"
              > word. Not even sure of your idea of my idea by writing the list.
              >
              > Let me state it again:
              > "I love doing so sometimes (Naming things) to know what am I referring to"
              > "I guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
              > usability and knowledge."
              >
              > I had been in hundreds of discussions. Most of the time, two people
              > discuss about different things that are named the same. So, my first
              > action is to clarify what I mean by that name. Just as I did now with
              > my idea in the lines above.
              >
              > Ok, let's start again: I've created a classification of the common
              > understandings people that I've read and discussed with, had shown
              > related to REST. The intention is to identify how is the REST term
              > used and understood. It makes no sense to put a face on each class,
              > when we want common behavior for analysis.
              >
              > Sorry if taken as a bad thing. Not my intention.
              >
              > William.
              >
              > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:rest-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill de hOra <bill@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Assign a person to each of your stereotypes, let them and everyone else
              > > know.
              > >
              > > Still a good idea?
              > >
              > > Bill
              > >
              > > willmarpo wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Hello.
              > > > Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old
              > time
              > > > discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so
              > good, but
              > > > I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.
              > > >
              > > > So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a
              > classification
              > > > I did two days ago while riding the bus to work. Silly? It may be,
              > but I
              > > > guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
              > > > usability and knowledge.
              > > >
              > > > *API Makers*: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not
              > > > built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually
              > think
              > > > REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
              > > > /Subcategories:
              > > > / - *URI Jugglers*. This are the ones that think REST is all about
              > > > creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely
              > focused
              > > > on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
              > > > - *RPCers*. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise
              > > > using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak
              > RPC at all.
              > > > - *Exposers*: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that
              > > > think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST
              > is an
              > > > API for exposing things on the web.
              > > > - *CRUDers*: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for
              > > > CRUD. Simple.
              > > >
              > > > *Mappers*: This other category may use the API idea, but they
              > actually
              > > > thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to map
              > > > all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
              > > > - *CRUDers*. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to
              > > > HTTP operations, and that
              > > > makes it RESTful.
              > > > - *HTTPers*. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
              > > > - *Exposers*. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data
              > > > entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems
              > RESTful.
              > > > *
              > > > FAD followers?*: This is a group of t he reminders of the types.
              > > > Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
              > > > - *Standard Haters*: Here you have all those that think Standards are
              > > > evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do
              > > > whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
              > > > - *KISS lovers*. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And
              > > > someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with
              > > > URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
              > > > - *Servicers*. They think Services is good, and someone told them
              > REST
              > > > is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
              > > > - *BuzzWorders*. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so
              > they
              > > > follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it.
              > There
              > > > are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST in WOA.
              > No pun
              > > > intended on REST-*
              > > >
              > > > Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that
              > knows
              > > > REST as it actually is and understan ds it. That may be a one person
              > > > group (yes Roy).
              > > >
              > > > I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT
              > > > saying they are good, at all.
              > > >
              > > > What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?
              > > >
              > > > William Martinez Pomares.
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
              >
            • William Martinez Pomares
              You know, Antonio, you may be right, still that was not the intention! You see, I was expecting an interesting discussion where people would say things like
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 23, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                You know, Antonio, you may be right, still that was not the intention!

                You see, I was expecting an interesting discussion where people would say things like the ones you just said. I did not make the list to diminish people, but to point to uses or understandings or REST that I think are not totally correct. Since I'm not in the last group, it may be that one, several or partially some of the categories are right.

                Reading it again, yes, it sounds humorous! Probably because I tend to write that way (look at some others posts I have). But I assure you that it was not my intention to make ridiculous observations of people to make fun of them. No sense.

                Let me take some of the phrases you pointed out:
                "They like buzz words, so they follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it." This is BuzzWorders. Let me tell you there is an antipattern called "Jumping the Bandwagon". It refers to people and organizations that follow buzzwords just because they are buzzwords. Thousands of companies bought tools and platforms to have SOA in their systems. It is hard to find a tool that does not offer some kind of REST solution. And it is hard to find a company now that is not thinking on adding a REST API to their offerings. For some reason Roy exploded last time someone was marketing their new "RESTFul API". REST should be followed if it makes sense in your system. Is it suddenly that all systems in the world are networked systems on the web that need REST? See the point? Humorous or diminishings of a particular person?

                Now, "someone told them REST is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow...". What can I mention about this one? Look for all the discussion on the web, thousands of them, where the two antagonistic sides are WS (SOAP) and REST. As if REST was actually a replacement for web services. And Web Services was another BuzzWord (I had clients asking to add WS where they didn't fit, simply because they wanted WS!).

                "someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with URIs", "so they follow REST doing whatever they want.". REST is not easy, if it is then why are there so many questions in this forum? Hundreds of APIs were not more than RPC composed in URIs (did they read anything to keep them away of doing the most dreaded RPC? If so why do they keep doing it?). Clients ask me to do it REST because it would be easier that web services. And WS are a right away.

                "They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough." Actually, deep enough. I had just read one post here trying REST without HTTP. I'm not sure if all the rest of the world knows that is possible. Pleas tell me what is humorous about this one.

                "They think REST is a web api for CRUD. Simple.". Please search google for CRUD and REST discussions. And these are very interesting indeed, for the mapping is quite close, and Roy may come and tell me that is ok to think of a CRUDable REST.

                So, can you see now that what you think of my intention may be correct, but not quite? At least I made you think about the option, think of some of them as not correct, analyze yourself to see how you fit it, and maybe make you aware of what things not to approach. If it helps, good. If you think I mock up people, then I'm sorry.

                William Martinez Pomares.


                --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, António Mota <amsmota@...> wrote:
                >
                > I though your initial post was something like a "humorous" post, that
                > the intention of it was to put a smile in everybody faces. Because
                > otherwise it tends to be seen a little diminishing for everybody that
                > falls in your categories.
                >
                > "They like buzz words, so they follow REST just because it is cool and
                > all people talk about it."
                >
                > "someone told them REST is a way to do services without SOAP. So they
                > follow..."
                >
                > "someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with URIs"
                >
                > "so they follow REST doing whatever they want."
                >
                > "They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough."
                >
                > "They think REST is a web api for CRUD. Simple."
                >
                > Now I appreciate a good irony when it is said... ironically. But now you
                > say that this is not a "humorous" post but it should be taken literally,
                > because "the intention is to identify how is the REST term used and
                > understood." And we have to identify ourselves in one of the groups you
                > mention, most of them "because it's cool", because "someone told then"
                > and "so they follow", practically all of them described in terms that
                > are either humorous or (xor) diminishing...
                >
                > I myself think I can fall in more than one group, but I prefer to think
                > that is because I'm in a early stage of working with REST and I have
                > lot's of things yet to grasp and little time to do it, and not just
                > because I found REST cool and all people talk about it., or because
                > someone told me something and I just follow, or because I'm shallow
                > enough to believe REST is HTTP, or naive enough to think is simple
                > CRUD... That would be to dismiss a person as of little intelligence, not
                > to say other harsh words...
                >
                > Finally, do you really believe there is only a person that knows REST as
                > it actually is and understands it, being that person Roy, or is that
                > part irony/humorous? Because I don't belong to that particular group for
                > sure, but to some people on this list that wrote lot's of good articles
                > in blogs from which I learned a lot that is, at least, unfair...
                >
                > Not that I think your intention was that, of course.
                >
                > William Martinez Pomares wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Hello Bill.
                > > Not sure of your intention with the comment. Sounds like
                > > disapprovement, due to the negative conception of the "stereotype"
                > > word. Not even sure of your idea of my idea by writing the list.
                > >
                > > Let me state it again:
                > > "I love doing so sometimes (Naming things) to know what am I referring to"
                > > "I guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
                > > usability and knowledge."
                > >
                > > I had been in hundreds of discussions. Most of the time, two people
                > > discuss about different things that are named the same. So, my first
                > > action is to clarify what I mean by that name. Just as I did now with
                > > my idea in the lines above.
                > >
                > > Ok, let's start again: I've created a classification of the common
                > > understandings people that I've read and discussed with, had shown
                > > related to REST. The intention is to identify how is the REST term
                > > used and understood. It makes no sense to put a face on each class,
                > > when we want common behavior for analysis.
                > >
                > > Sorry if taken as a bad thing. Not my intention.
                > >
                > > William.
                > >
                > > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
                > > <mailto:rest-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill de hOra <bill@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Assign a person to each of your stereotypes, let them and everyone else
                > > > know.
                > > >
                > > > Still a good idea?
                > > >
                > > > Bill
                > > >
                > > > willmarpo wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Hello.
                > > > > Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old
                > > time
                > > > > discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so
                > > good, but
                > > > > I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.
                > > > >
                > > > > So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a
                > > classification
                > > > > I did two days ago while riding the bus to work. Silly? It may be,
                > > but I
                > > > > guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
                > > > > usability and knowledge.
                > > > >
                > > > > *API Makers*: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not
                > > > > built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually
                > > think
                > > > > REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
                > > > > /Subcategories:
                > > > > / - *URI Jugglers*. This are the ones that think REST is all about
                > > > > creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely
                > > focused
                > > > > on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
                > > > > - *RPCers*. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise
                > > > > using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak
                > > RPC at all.
                > > > > - *Exposers*: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that
                > > > > think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST
                > > is an
                > > > > API for exposing things on the web.
                > > > > - *CRUDers*: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for
                > > > > CRUD. Simple.
                > > > >
                > > > > *Mappers*: This other category may use the API idea, but they
                > > actually
                > > > > thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to map
                > > > > all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
                > > > > - *CRUDers*. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to
                > > > > HTTP operations, and that
                > > > > makes it RESTful.
                > > > > - *HTTPers*. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
                > > > > - *Exposers*. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data
                > > > > entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems
                > > RESTful.
                > > > > *
                > > > > FAD followers?*: This is a group of t he reminders of the types.
                > > > > Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
                > > > > - *Standard Haters*: Here you have all those that think Standards are
                > > > > evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do
                > > > > whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
                > > > > - *KISS lovers*. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And
                > > > > someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with
                > > > > URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
                > > > > - *Servicers*. They think Services is good, and someone told them
                > > REST
                > > > > is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
                > > > > - *BuzzWorders*. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so
                > > they
                > > > > follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it.
                > > There
                > > > > are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST in WOA.
                > > No pun
                > > > > intended on REST-*
                > > > >
                > > > > Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that
                > > knows
                > > > > REST as it actually is and understan ds it. That may be a one person
                > > > > group (yes Roy).
                > > > >
                > > > > I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT
                > > > > saying they are good, at all.
                > > > >
                > > > > What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?
                > > > >
                > > > > William Martinez Pomares.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • William Martinez Pomares
                Sorry Antonio, I forgot two things. 1. That last part of Roy being the one was indeed humorous. I said May Be, which allows a set of good guys in this
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 23, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sorry Antonio, I forgot two things.

                  1. That last part of Roy being the one was indeed humorous. I said May Be, which allows a set of good guys in this community to enter the group, but since I'm not there I cannot tell you who they are.

                  2. Irony is "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs". In this case, the post is not ironical, because it tells you what is actually occurring without comparing against the expected. It is just a set of categories you can validate on internet.

                  Cheers!

                  William.

                  --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, António Mota <amsmota@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I though your initial post was something like a "humorous" post, that
                  > the intention of it was to put a smile in everybody faces. Because
                  > otherwise it tends to be seen a little diminishing for everybody that
                  > falls in your categories.
                  >
                  > "They like buzz words, so they follow REST just because it is cool and
                  > all people talk about it."
                  >
                  > "someone told them REST is a way to do services without SOAP. So they
                  > follow..."
                  >
                  > "someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with URIs"
                  >
                  > "so they follow REST doing whatever they want."
                  >
                  > "They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough."
                  >
                  > "They think REST is a web api for CRUD. Simple."
                  >
                  > Now I appreciate a good irony when it is said... ironically. But now you
                  > say that this is not a "humorous" post but it should be taken literally,
                  > because "the intention is to identify how is the REST term used and
                  > understood." And we have to identify ourselves in one of the groups you
                  > mention, most of them "because it's cool", because "someone told then"
                  > and "so they follow", practically all of them described in terms that
                  > are either humorous or (xor) diminishing...
                  >
                  > I myself think I can fall in more than one group, but I prefer to think
                  > that is because I'm in a early stage of working with REST and I have
                  > lot's of things yet to grasp and little time to do it, and not just
                  > because I found REST cool and all people talk about it., or because
                  > someone told me something and I just follow, or because I'm shallow
                  > enough to believe REST is HTTP, or naive enough to think is simple
                  > CRUD... That would be to dismiss a person as of little intelligence, not
                  > to say other harsh words...
                  >
                  > Finally, do you really believe there is only a person that knows REST as
                  > it actually is and understands it, being that person Roy, or is that
                  > part irony/humorous? Because I don't belong to that particular group for
                  > sure, but to some people on this list that wrote lot's of good articles
                  > in blogs from which I learned a lot that is, at least, unfair...
                  >
                  > Not that I think your intention was that, of course.
                  >
                  > William Martinez Pomares wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hello Bill.
                  > > Not sure of your intention with the comment. Sounds like
                  > > disapprovement, due to the negative conception of the "stereotype"
                  > > word. Not even sure of your idea of my idea by writing the list.
                  > >
                  > > Let me state it again:
                  > > "I love doing so sometimes (Naming things) to know what am I referring to"
                  > > "I guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
                  > > usability and knowledge."
                  > >
                  > > I had been in hundreds of discussions. Most of the time, two people
                  > > discuss about different things that are named the same. So, my first
                  > > action is to clarify what I mean by that name. Just as I did now with
                  > > my idea in the lines above.
                  > >
                  > > Ok, let's start again: I've created a classification of the common
                  > > understandings people that I've read and discussed with, had shown
                  > > related to REST. The intention is to identify how is the REST term
                  > > used and understood. It makes no sense to put a face on each class,
                  > > when we want common behavior for analysis.
                  > >
                  > > Sorry if taken as a bad thing. Not my intention.
                  > >
                  > > William.
                  > >
                  > > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
                  > > <mailto:rest-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill de hOra <bill@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Assign a person to each of your stereotypes, let them and everyone else
                  > > > know.
                  > > >
                  > > > Still a good idea?
                  > > >
                  > > > Bill
                  > > >
                  > > > willmarpo wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Hello.
                  > > > > Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old
                  > > time
                  > > > > discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so
                  > > good, but
                  > > > > I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a
                  > > classification
                  > > > > I did two days ago while riding the bus to work. Silly? It may be,
                  > > but I
                  > > > > guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
                  > > > > usability and knowledge.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > *API Makers*: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not
                  > > > > built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually
                  > > think
                  > > > > REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
                  > > > > /Subcategories:
                  > > > > / - *URI Jugglers*. This are the ones that think REST is all about
                  > > > > creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely
                  > > focused
                  > > > > on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
                  > > > > - *RPCers*. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise
                  > > > > using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak
                  > > RPC at all.
                  > > > > - *Exposers*: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that
                  > > > > think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST
                  > > is an
                  > > > > API for exposing things on the web.
                  > > > > - *CRUDers*: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for
                  > > > > CRUD. Simple.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > *Mappers*: This other category may use the API idea, but they
                  > > actually
                  > > > > thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to map
                  > > > > all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
                  > > > > - *CRUDers*. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to
                  > > > > HTTP operations, and that
                  > > > > makes it RESTful.
                  > > > > - *HTTPers*. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
                  > > > > - *Exposers*. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data
                  > > > > entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems
                  > > RESTful.
                  > > > > *
                  > > > > FAD followers?*: This is a group of t he reminders of the types.
                  > > > > Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
                  > > > > - *Standard Haters*: Here you have all those that think Standards are
                  > > > > evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do
                  > > > > whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
                  > > > > - *KISS lovers*. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And
                  > > > > someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with
                  > > > > URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
                  > > > > - *Servicers*. They think Services is good, and someone told them
                  > > REST
                  > > > > is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
                  > > > > - *BuzzWorders*. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so
                  > > they
                  > > > > follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it.
                  > > There
                  > > > > are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST in WOA.
                  > > No pun
                  > > > > intended on REST-*
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that
                  > > knows
                  > > > > REST as it actually is and understan ds it. That may be a one person
                  > > > > group (yes Roy).
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT
                  > > > > saying they are good, at all.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > William Martinez Pomares.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Erling Wegger Linde
                  Hi, First of all, I also interpreted this as humorous. (Personally, I m probably something like a loose coupling addict . ) However, using humor to achieve a
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 26, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,

                    First of all, I also interpreted this as humorous. (Personally, I'm probably something like a "loose coupling addict". )

                    However, using humor to achieve a (serious) goal is a good thing.

                    I imagine one could have all sorts of "so you think you know REST"-checklists / personal assessment tools (you can probably take this too far..). Having some way of giving developers feedback on which "fan types" they might be, could be a good thing. Let's say you end up as a "URI-juggler", you might realize that you should read up on HATEOAS etc. And by using humor, it might encourage more people to do so etc. etc.

                    Cheers,
                    Erling

                    On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM, William Martinez Pomares <wmartinez@...> wrote:
                     

                    Sorry Antonio, I forgot two things.

                    1. That last part of Roy being the one was indeed humorous. I said May Be, which allows a set of good guys in this community to enter the group, but since I'm not there I cannot tell you who they are.

                    2. Irony is "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs". In this case, the post is not ironical, because it tells you what is actually occurring without comparing against the expected. It is just a set of categories you can validate on internet.

                    Cheers!

                    William.



                    --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, António Mota <amsmota@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I though your initial post was something like a "humorous" post, that
                    > the intention of it was to put a smile in everybody faces. Because
                    > otherwise it tends to be seen a little diminishing for everybody that
                    > falls in your categories.
                    >
                    > "They like buzz words, so they follow REST just because it is cool and
                    > all people talk about it."
                    >
                    > "someone told them REST is a way to do services without SOAP. So they
                    > follow..."
                    >
                    > "someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with URIs"
                    >
                    > "so they follow REST doing whatever they want."
                    >
                    > "They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough."
                    >
                    > "They think REST is a web api for CRUD. Simple."
                    >
                    > Now I appreciate a good irony when it is said... ironically. But now you
                    > say that this is not a "humorous" post but it should be taken literally,
                    > because "the intention is to identify how is the REST term used and
                    > understood." And we have to identify ourselves in one of the groups you
                    > mention, most of them "because it's cool", because "someone told then"
                    > and "so they follow", practically all of them described in terms that
                    > are either humorous or (xor) diminishing...
                    >
                    > I myself think I can fall in more than one group, but I prefer to think
                    > that is because I'm in a early stage of working with REST and I have
                    > lot's of things yet to grasp and little time to do it, and not just
                    > because I found REST cool and all people talk about it., or because
                    > someone told me something and I just follow, or because I'm shallow
                    > enough to believe REST is HTTP, or naive enough to think is simple
                    > CRUD... That would be to dismiss a person as of little intelligence, not
                    > to say other harsh words...
                    >
                    > Finally, do you really believe there is only a person that knows REST as
                    > it actually is and understands it, being that person Roy, or is that
                    > part irony/humorous? Because I don't belong to that particular group for
                    > sure, but to some people on this list that wrote lot's of good articles
                    > in blogs from which I learned a lot that is, at least, unfair...
                    >
                    > Not that I think your intention was that, of course.
                    >
                    > William Martinez Pomares wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Hello Bill.
                    > > Not sure of your intention with the comment. Sounds like
                    > > disapprovement, due to the negative conception of the "stereotype"
                    > > word. Not even sure of your idea of my idea by writing the list.
                    > >
                    > > Let me state it again:
                    > > "I love doing so sometimes (Naming things) to know what am I referring to"
                    > > "I guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
                    > > usability and knowledge."
                    > >
                    > > I had been in hundreds of discussions. Most of the time, two people
                    > > discuss about different things that are named the same. So, my first
                    > > action is to clarify what I mean by that name. Just as I did now with
                    > > my idea in the lines above.
                    > >
                    > > Ok, let's start again: I've created a classification of the common
                    > > understandings people that I've read and discussed with, had shown
                    > > related to REST. The intention is to identify how is the REST term
                    > > used and understood. It makes no sense to put a face on each class,
                    > > when we want common behavior for analysis.
                    > >
                    > > Sorry if taken as a bad thing. Not my intention.
                    > >
                    > > William.
                    > >
                    > > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com
                    > > <mailto:rest-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill de hOra <bill@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Assign a person to each of your stereotypes, let them and everyone else
                    > > > know.
                    > > >
                    > > > Still a good idea?
                    > > >
                    > > > Bill
                    > > >
                    > > > willmarpo wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Hello.
                    > > > > Reading through all this good material about REST, I find some old
                    > > time
                    > > > > discussions around. Someone suggested naming things is not so
                    > > good, but
                    > > > > I love doing so somethings to know what am I referring to.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > So, having all of you as REST fans, I wanted to present a
                    > > classification
                    > > > > I did two days ago while riding the bus to work. Silly? It may be,
                    > > but I
                    > > > > guess it helps understand where are we standing in terms of REST
                    > > > > usability and knowledge.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > *API Makers*: I find them everywhere. They have a system, usually not
                    > > > > built thinking on REST, and they want an API created. They usually
                    > > think
                    > > > > REST is an API making technique or recipe, for the web.
                    > > > > /Subcategories:
                    > > > > / - *URI Jugglers*. This are the ones that think REST is all about
                    > > > > creating URIs, and nothing more. So their discussions are solely
                    > > focused
                    > > > > on URIs, and their presentations are about URIs definitions.
                    > > > > - *RPCers*. Bad group that think REST is a way to map RPC in disguise
                    > > > > using URIs in a web API. The most of them don't know they speak
                    > > RPC at all.
                    > > > > - *Exposers*: This type is repeated below. Those are the guys that
                    > > > > think you need to expose things in REST using resources. So REST
                    > > is an
                    > > > > API for exposing things on the web.
                    > > > > - *CRUDers*: Another repeated group. They think REST is a web api for
                    > > > > CRUD. Simple.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > *Mappers*: This other category may use the API idea, but they
                    > > actually
                    > > > > thing REST is a representation type and the work to be done is to map
                    > > > > all that is know used to that new type. Interesting?
                    > > > > - *CRUDers*. Again, the idea is that CRUD can be mapped naturally to
                    > > > > HTTP operations, and that
                    > > > > makes it RESTful.
                    > > > > - *HTTPers*. They believe REST is HTTP. Deep enough.
                    > > > > - *Exposers*. Again too. They usually try to map all classes, data
                    > > > > entities, elements into resources, and then call their systems
                    > > RESTful.
                    > > > > *
                    > > > > FAD followers?*: This is a group of t he reminders of the types.
                    > > > > Usually, they tend to follow a lead.
                    > > > > - *Standard Haters*: Here you have all those that think Standards are
                    > > > > evil and that REST is an anarchy where you have the freedom to do
                    > > > > whatever you like, so they follow REST doing whatever they want.
                    > > > > - *KISS lovers*. This are the ones that like thinks to be simple. And
                    > > > > someone told them REST is easy, so they follow doing easy things with
                    > > > > URIs. There are lots of URI jugglers in this group.
                    > > > > - *Servicers*. They think Services is good, and someone told them
                    > > REST
                    > > > > is a way to do services without SOAP. So they follow.
                    > > > > - *BuzzWorders*. This is a vast majority. They like buzz words, so
                    > > they
                    > > > > follow REST just because it is cool and all people talk about it.
                    > > There
                    > > > > are some Buzz creators too, with thinks like ROA and REST in WOA.
                    > > No pun
                    > > > > intended on REST-*
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Is there some one I'm missing? Well, yes, probably the group that
                    > > knows
                    > > > > REST as it actually is and understan ds it. That may be a one person
                    > > > > group (yes Roy).
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I'm may not be saying all those believes up there are wrong. I'm NOT
                    > > > > saying they are good, at all.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > What do you think? Do you find yourself in any of those groups?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > William Martinez Pomares.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >


                  • William Martinez Pomares
                    Thanks Erling, for your message. You know, I ve read the post several times, and I still don t find it so humorous, but for the names of the categories. I
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 28, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks Erling, for your message.
                      You know, I've read the post several times, and I still don't find it so humorous, but for the names of the categories. I don't find them humiliating either (at least, that was not the intention). I'm still surprised for the reaction. And maybe that is why many people overlooked the post as not interesting, failing to start a good discussion.

                      Anyway, as you say, it may help someone to investigate even further of whether what it is believing is the complete thing or not. And that is a plus.

                      Cheers!

                      William Martinez Pomares

                      --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Erling Wegger Linde <erlingwl@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi,
                      >
                      > First of all, I also interpreted this as humorous. (Personally, I'm probably
                      > something like a "loose coupling addict". )
                      >
                      > However, using humor to achieve a (serious) goal is a good thing.
                      >
                      > I imagine one could have all sorts of "so you think you know
                      > REST"-checklists / personal assessment tools (you can probably take this too
                      > far..). Having some way of giving developers feedback on which "fan types"
                      > they might be, could be a good thing. Let's say you end up as a
                      > "URI-juggler", you might realize that you should read up on HATEOAS etc. And
                      > by using humor, it might encourage more people to do so etc. etc.
                      >
                      > Cheers,
                      > Erling
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.