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

Re: [rest-discuss] URI design, part 2

Expand Messages
  • Eric J. Bowman
    ... DELETE /orders/1 doesn t have to delete the resource, it can move it to, say, /canceled/1. In which case you re only changing one property of the order
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 3, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Max Toro wrote:
      >
      > Did not choose DELETE because cancel does not delete the resource, it
      > executes some logic which in the end sets it's status field to
      > Canceled.
      >

      DELETE /orders/1 doesn't have to delete the resource, it can move it to,
      say, /canceled/1. In which case you're only changing one property of
      the order "object" on your server -- its mapping. REST isn't CRUD. In
      a hypertext API, it's often best to have different URI paths for the
      same set of server objects, if their policies vary based on a property
      like status...

      Web servers configure policies based on path, so add another URI mapping
      instead of making server logic more complex by trying to apply different
      policies based on parsing content for 'canceled=true'. Try to think in
      terms of hypertext applications instead of serializing objects to
      hypertext -- status isn't a field in a hypertext document in REST when
      its semantics overlap that of HTTP status responses, especially if
      status varies by user role:

      The customer checking /orders/1 knows they've successfully canceled it,
      because their DELETE request responded 200 OK with the order and new
      status in the message body, and that URL now responds to GET with 410
      Gone. The 410 response may include the order as its entity, or not,
      for the customer role.

      Other user roles, i.e. admin, may get redirected to /canceled/1, where
      they are subject to different policies than exist for an active order.
      Admins may DELETE from /canceled to actually delete a canceled order,
      while customers are 403 Forbidden from entering /canceled to begin with.
      Also, just because you're using the DELETE method, doesn't mean the UI
      has to say "delete" on the cancel control.

      >
      > The implementation of PATCH with a body 'status=Canceled' can be
      > tricky if you also accept changes to other fields, which may or may
      > not have some logic associated to them.
      >

      What matters is user intent. Clear intention to cancel an order should
      unambiguously be its own operation from the UI-design perspective; from
      the protocol perspective, this idempotent user action should be made
      explicitly visible on the wire by selecting the most appropriate HTTP
      method.

      Of all manipulations we may allow for an order, this is the only one
      that's self-explanatory without transferring a representation, another
      indication that DELETE has the semantics we're after, provided we don't
      get hung up on having to delete something -- which we don't!

      If, to the requesting user, canceling an order makes it go away, then
      using DELETE meets the self-descriptive messaging and uniform interface
      constraints of REST. What happens to the order is an implementation
      detail, hidden behind the uniform interface. To the world-at-large,
      the traffic pattern of an order cancellation looks like exactly what it
      is, as the principle of generality has been followed.

      The visibility of DELETE allows intermediaries to mark cached copies
      of /orders/1 as stale. This optimization is built-in to the deployed
      infrastructure of the Web, all it does here is ensure the requesting
      user doesn't re-load a stale copy of /orders/1 which fails to reflect
      the results of the action just taken. This can't be done with PATCH,
      even if you can get close by marking the request as idempotent.

      -Eric
    • Eric J. Bowman
      ... Yes, such examples are out there, but in them, /cancel is NOT a resource in the REST sense so they must be some style of RPC... REST, not so much.
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 3, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Max Toro wrote:
        >
        > > Well, what are you expecting to GET from /cancel, or are you just
        > > using that URL to invoke a procedure? If so, then there are a few
        > > places Roy's thesis admonishes against it in Chapter 6 -- the rest
        > > of REST is about positive, rather than negative, reinforcement of
        > > the identification of resources constraint. Suggested reading:
        > > 6.5.2; 6.2.1, in particular: "REST [defines] a resource to be the
        > > semantics of what the author intends to identify."
        >
        > To clarify, /orders/1/cancel is used to modify a resource, using POST.
        > A GET request would result in a Method Not Allowed response.
        >

        Yes, such examples are out there, but in them, /cancel is NOT a resource
        in the REST sense so they must be some style of RPC... REST, not so
        much. Representational State Transfer means just that -- resources are
        manipulated by transferring representations of their current, intended,
        desired etc. state. Chapter 5.4:

        "Requests and responses have the appearance of a remote invocation
        style, but REST messages are targeted at a conceptual resource rather
        than an implementation identifier."

        This example is a REST anti-pattern, as I cannot deduce the current
        (sub)state of the order (active or canceled) by dereferencing the URL
        I'm given for manipulating that (sub)state. Just making a toggle POST
        also fails to transfer any representation of anything, let alone
        application state, and isn't proper HTTP (which can never be proper
        REST).

        REST isn't about optimizing upstream traffic, it's about optimizing GET.
        What advantage does a subresource give when it contains no content from
        the parent resource? My goal with subresources is to increase the cache
        stickiness of their parent resources. Replace the subresource content
        in the parent resource, with a link or a hypertext control linked to the
        subresource. The link or hypertext control remains static, and cached,
        as the content of the subresource varies.

        That's a RESTful pattern, as the subresource now has a representation
        (other than that of the 406 error) we can transfer and manipulate to
        effect change of the parent resource.

        >
        > > Not the semantics of a method invocation. What does /cancel
        > > identify? Sounds to me like a method of tunneling DELETE through
        > > POST which identifies nothing, iow a procedure endpoint, which is
        > > characteristic of various styles but not of the REST style. The
        > > hypertext constraint only makes sense if your resources make sense,
        > > in that their URLs are identifiers rather than endpoints.
        >
        > If I understand correctly, you are saying that if I need to affect a
        > resource then I should use the uniform interface on that resource URI,
        > and not another URI.
        >

        Absolutely not! My example changed /order/1 by manipulating /order/1
        /status. The /order/1 resource includes its status, but its 200 OK
        representations only include links to the /status subresource, derived
        from the /order/1 resource such that manipulating a representation
        of /order/1/status updates /order/1 (on the server, you can do anything
        you want; on the client, the cached link/control in /order/1 now returns
        a different value).

        There's no cost to adding a URI like this, nor does it preclude changing
        order status via PUT/PATCH to /order/1. The difference is that /status
        uses REST's uniform interface, unlike /cancel. The /order/1/status URL
        is only presented within a hypertext control which explains how to
        manipulate it -- picture a drop-down list with the current status
        highlighted, meeting the hypertext constraint. You can always GET the
        status of an order even if you don't have a copy of that order, a
        useful separation of concerns beyond just optimizing GET, promoting
        serendipitous re-use.

        >
        > > Which brings us to Chapter 5, and the short answer to your question:
        > > "POSTing to /cancel violates the Identification of Resources
        > > constraint, and is therefore unRESTful." But I've found that just
        > > giving that answer tends to upset folks who've only read Chapter 5,
        > > then they get defensive about why can't they call their API
        > > RESTful, accusations of pedantry follow, and threads devolve into
        > > general ugliness, heheh...
        >
        > After reading that chapter again I'm not sure my example violates
        > anything, but I'd love to get more clarification from you. Is it the
        > use of a verb in the URI? or not using the URI of the resource I'm
        > trying to modify directly?
        >

        The biggest problem, is that an RPC endpoint which has no GET function
        while improperly listening for a method itself as a trigger rather than
        taking action based on the content of the entity required by that method
        and in obeyance of the semantics of that method, is so far away from
        REST that I don't know where to start except by urging that Roy's
        thesis be read in its entirety. Because it's obvious to me that this
        violates the first three uniform interface constraints, making adherence
        to the fourth irrelevant:

        "REST is defined by four interface constraints: identification of
        resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-
        descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of application
        state."

        Note that "noun/verb" terminology is not present in the dissertation.
        But, yeah, if your URI is a "verb" you're probably getting REST wrong.
        There is no "cancel" method in the uniform interface. There are two
        basic means of solving this -- one, is refactor your cancel operation
        to use DELETE; two, tunnel your proprietary cancel method through POST.

        http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/19210

        Making this operation its own URI doesn't make it more RESTful, as the
        resulting URI is only a resource in the HTTP/URI sense, but not the
        REST sense, of the term. Utilizing subresources to break out more
        dynamic aspects of content and cache them separately is RESTful; if the
        contents of the GET are also allowable content of a PUT then we're
        letting hypertext drive application state instead of listening for POST
        events to trigger server-object methods we've failed to refactor to the
        uniform REST interface.

        -Eric
      • Max Toro
        Thank you very much for your responses Eric. The short answer is (if I understood correctly): POST /cancel is not REST because it lacks visibility, since it s
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 4, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you very much for your responses Eric.

          The short answer is (if I understood correctly): POST /cancel is not
          REST because it lacks visibility, since it's not possible to
          understand the client's intent by examining the request.

          Never thought about HTTP/URI resource vs. REST resource, you say that
          a URI that doesn't implement GET is probably (or always) not REST.
          --
          Max Toro


          On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
          > Max Toro wrote:
          >>
          >> > Well, what are you expecting to GET from /cancel, or are you just
          >> > using that URL to invoke a procedure? If so, then there are a few
          >> > places Roy's thesis admonishes against it in Chapter 6 -- the rest
          >> > of REST is about positive, rather than negative, reinforcement of
          >> > the identification of resources constraint. Suggested reading:
          >> > 6.5.2; 6.2.1, in particular: "REST [defines] a resource to be the
          >> > semantics of what the author intends to identify."
          >>
          >> To clarify, /orders/1/cancel is used to modify a resource, using POST.
          >> A GET request would result in a Method Not Allowed response.
          >>
          >
          > Yes, such examples are out there, but in them, /cancel is NOT a resource
          > in the REST sense so they must be some style of RPC... REST, not so
          > much. Representational State Transfer means just that -- resources are
          > manipulated by transferring representations of their current, intended,
          > desired etc. state. Chapter 5.4:
          >
          > "Requests and responses have the appearance of a remote invocation
          > style, but REST messages are targeted at a conceptual resource rather
          > than an implementation identifier."
          >
          > This example is a REST anti-pattern, as I cannot deduce the current
          > (sub)state of the order (active or canceled) by dereferencing the URL
          > I'm given for manipulating that (sub)state. Just making a toggle POST
          > also fails to transfer any representation of anything, let alone
          > application state, and isn't proper HTTP (which can never be proper
          > REST).
          >
          > REST isn't about optimizing upstream traffic, it's about optimizing GET.
          > What advantage does a subresource give when it contains no content from
          > the parent resource? My goal with subresources is to increase the cache
          > stickiness of their parent resources. Replace the subresource content
          > in the parent resource, with a link or a hypertext control linked to the
          > subresource. The link or hypertext control remains static, and cached,
          > as the content of the subresource varies.
          >
          > That's a RESTful pattern, as the subresource now has a representation
          > (other than that of the 406 error) we can transfer and manipulate to
          > effect change of the parent resource.
          >
          >>
          >> > Not the semantics of a method invocation. What does /cancel
          >> > identify? Sounds to me like a method of tunneling DELETE through
          >> > POST which identifies nothing, iow a procedure endpoint, which is
          >> > characteristic of various styles but not of the REST style. The
          >> > hypertext constraint only makes sense if your resources make sense,
          >> > in that their URLs are identifiers rather than endpoints.
          >>
          >> If I understand correctly, you are saying that if I need to affect a
          >> resource then I should use the uniform interface on that resource URI,
          >> and not another URI.
          >>
          >
          > Absolutely not! My example changed /order/1 by manipulating /order/1
          > /status. The /order/1 resource includes its status, but its 200 OK
          > representations only include links to the /status subresource, derived
          > from the /order/1 resource such that manipulating a representation
          > of /order/1/status updates /order/1 (on the server, you can do anything
          > you want; on the client, the cached link/control in /order/1 now returns
          > a different value).
          >
          > There's no cost to adding a URI like this, nor does it preclude changing
          > order status via PUT/PATCH to /order/1. The difference is that /status
          > uses REST's uniform interface, unlike /cancel. The /order/1/status URL
          > is only presented within a hypertext control which explains how to
          > manipulate it -- picture a drop-down list with the current status
          > highlighted, meeting the hypertext constraint. You can always GET the
          > status of an order even if you don't have a copy of that order, a
          > useful separation of concerns beyond just optimizing GET, promoting
          > serendipitous re-use.
          >
          >>
          >> > Which brings us to Chapter 5, and the short answer to your question:
          >> > "POSTing to /cancel violates the Identification of Resources
          >> > constraint, and is therefore unRESTful." But I've found that just
          >> > giving that answer tends to upset folks who've only read Chapter 5,
          >> > then they get defensive about why can't they call their API
          >> > RESTful, accusations of pedantry follow, and threads devolve into
          >> > general ugliness, heheh...
          >>
          >> After reading that chapter again I'm not sure my example violates
          >> anything, but I'd love to get more clarification from you. Is it the
          >> use of a verb in the URI? or not using the URI of the resource I'm
          >> trying to modify directly?
          >>
          >
          > The biggest problem, is that an RPC endpoint which has no GET function
          > while improperly listening for a method itself as a trigger rather than
          > taking action based on the content of the entity required by that method
          > and in obeyance of the semantics of that method, is so far away from
          > REST that I don't know where to start except by urging that Roy's
          > thesis be read in its entirety. Because it's obvious to me that this
          > violates the first three uniform interface constraints, making adherence
          > to the fourth irrelevant:
          >
          > "REST is defined by four interface constraints: identification of
          > resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-
          > descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of application
          > state."
          >
          > Note that "noun/verb" terminology is not present in the dissertation.
          > But, yeah, if your URI is a "verb" you're probably getting REST wrong.
          > There is no "cancel" method in the uniform interface. There are two
          > basic means of solving this -- one, is refactor your cancel operation
          > to use DELETE; two, tunnel your proprietary cancel method through POST.
          >
          > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/19210
          >
          > Making this operation its own URI doesn't make it more RESTful, as the
          > resulting URI is only a resource in the HTTP/URI sense, but not the
          > REST sense, of the term. Utilizing subresources to break out more
          > dynamic aspects of content and cache them separately is RESTful; if the
          > contents of the GET are also allowable content of a PUT then we're
          > letting hypertext drive application state instead of listening for POST
          > events to trigger server-object methods we've failed to refactor to the
          > uniform REST interface.
          >
          > -Eric
        • Jan Algermissen
          ... Maybe of interest: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/18998 jan
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 4, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Max Toro <maxtoroq@...> wrote:

            > Thank you very much for your responses Eric.
            >
            > The short answer is (if I understood correctly): POST /cancel is not
            > REST because it lacks visibility, since it's not possible to
            > understand the client's intent by examining the request.

            Maybe of interest: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/18998

            jan


            >
            > Never thought about HTTP/URI resource vs. REST resource, you say that
            > a URI that doesn't implement GET is probably (or always) not REST.
            > --
            > Max Toro
            >
            > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
            > > Max Toro wrote:
            > >>
            > >> > Well, what are you expecting to GET from /cancel, or are you just
            > >> > using that URL to invoke a procedure? If so, then there are a few
            > >> > places Roy's thesis admonishes against it in Chapter 6 -- the rest
            > >> > of REST is about positive, rather than negative, reinforcement of
            > >> > the identification of resources constraint. Suggested reading:
            > >> > 6.5.2; 6.2.1, in particular: "REST [defines] a resource to be the
            > >> > semantics of what the author intends to identify."
            > >>
            > >> To clarify, /orders/1/cancel is used to modify a resource, using POST.
            > >> A GET request would result in a Method Not Allowed response.
            > >>
            > >
            > > Yes, such examples are out there, but in them, /cancel is NOT a resource
            > > in the REST sense so they must be some style of RPC... REST, not so
            > > much. Representational State Transfer means just that -- resources are
            > > manipulated by transferring representations of their current, intended,
            > > desired etc. state. Chapter 5.4:
            > >
            > > "Requests and responses have the appearance of a remote invocation
            > > style, but REST messages are targeted at a conceptual resource rather
            > > than an implementation identifier."
            > >
            > > This example is a REST anti-pattern, as I cannot deduce the current
            > > (sub)state of the order (active or canceled) by dereferencing the URL
            > > I'm given for manipulating that (sub)state. Just making a toggle POST
            > > also fails to transfer any representation of anything, let alone
            > > application state, and isn't proper HTTP (which can never be proper
            > > REST).
            > >
            > > REST isn't about optimizing upstream traffic, it's about optimizing GET.
            > > What advantage does a subresource give when it contains no content from
            > > the parent resource? My goal with subresources is to increase the cache
            > > stickiness of their parent resources. Replace the subresource content
            > > in the parent resource, with a link or a hypertext control linked to the
            > > subresource. The link or hypertext control remains static, and cached,
            > > as the content of the subresource varies.
            > >
            > > That's a RESTful pattern, as the subresource now has a representation
            > > (other than that of the 406 error) we can transfer and manipulate to
            > > effect change of the parent resource.
            > >
            > >>
            > >> > Not the semantics of a method invocation. What does /cancel
            > >> > identify? Sounds to me like a method of tunneling DELETE through
            > >> > POST which identifies nothing, iow a procedure endpoint, which is
            > >> > characteristic of various styles but not of the REST style. The
            > >> > hypertext constraint only makes sense if your resources make sense,
            > >> > in that their URLs are identifiers rather than endpoints.
            > >>
            > >> If I understand correctly, you are saying that if I need to affect a
            > >> resource then I should use the uniform interface on that resource URI,
            > >> and not another URI.
            > >>
            > >
            > > Absolutely not! My example changed /order/1 by manipulating /order/1
            > > /status. The /order/1 resource includes its status, but its 200 OK
            > > representations only include links to the /status subresource, derived
            > > from the /order/1 resource such that manipulating a representation
            > > of /order/1/status updates /order/1 (on the server, you can do anything
            > > you want; on the client, the cached link/control in /order/1 now returns
            > > a different value).
            > >
            > > There's no cost to adding a URI like this, nor does it preclude changing
            > > order status via PUT/PATCH to /order/1. The difference is that /status
            > > uses REST's uniform interface, unlike /cancel. The /order/1/status URL
            > > is only presented within a hypertext control which explains how to
            > > manipulate it -- picture a drop-down list with the current status
            > > highlighted, meeting the hypertext constraint. You can always GET the
            > > status of an order even if you don't have a copy of that order, a
            > > useful separation of concerns beyond just optimizing GET, promoting
            > > serendipitous re-use.
            > >
            > >>
            > >> > Which brings us to Chapter 5, and the short answer to your question:
            > >> > "POSTing to /cancel violates the Identification of Resources
            > >> > constraint, and is therefore unRESTful." But I've found that just
            > >> > giving that answer tends to upset folks who've only read Chapter 5,
            > >> > then they get defensive about why can't they call their API
            > >> > RESTful, accusations of pedantry follow, and threads devolve into
            > >> > general ugliness, heheh...
            > >>
            > >> After reading that chapter again I'm not sure my example violates
            > >> anything, but I'd love to get more clarification from you. Is it the
            > >> use of a verb in the URI? or not using the URI of the resource I'm
            > >> trying to modify directly?
            > >>
            > >
            > > The biggest problem, is that an RPC endpoint which has no GET function
            > > while improperly listening for a method itself as a trigger rather than
            > > taking action based on the content of the entity required by that method
            > > and in obeyance of the semantics of that method, is so far away from
            > > REST that I don't know where to start except by urging that Roy's
            > > thesis be read in its entirety. Because it's obvious to me that this
            > > violates the first three uniform interface constraints, making adherence
            > > to the fourth irrelevant:
            > >
            > > "REST is defined by four interface constraints: identification of
            > > resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-
            > > descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of application
            > > state."
            > >
            > > Note that "noun/verb" terminology is not present in the dissertation.
            > > But, yeah, if your URI is a "verb" you're probably getting REST wrong.
            > > There is no "cancel" method in the uniform interface. There are two
            > > basic means of solving this -- one, is refactor your cancel operation
            > > to use DELETE; two, tunnel your proprietary cancel method through POST.
            > >
            > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/19210
            > >
            > > Making this operation its own URI doesn't make it more RESTful, as the
            > > resulting URI is only a resource in the HTTP/URI sense, but not the
            > > REST sense, of the term. Utilizing subresources to break out more
            > > dynamic aspects of content and cache them separately is RESTful; if the
            > > contents of the GET are also allowable content of a PUT then we're
            > > letting hypertext drive application state instead of listening for POST
            > > events to trigger server-object methods we've failed to refactor to the
            > > uniform REST interface.
            > >
            > > -Eric
            >
          • Eric J. Bowman
            ... I d phrase it differently: POST /cancel violates self-descriptiveness as user intent cannot be discerned by examining the request. This would hold true
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 5, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Max Toro wrote:
              >
              > The short answer is (if I understood correctly): POST /cancel is not
              > REST because it lacks visibility, since it's not possible to
              > understand the client's intent by examining the request.
              >

              I'd phrase it differently: "POST /cancel violates self-descriptiveness
              as user intent cannot be discerned by examining the request." This
              would hold true even if GET /cancel had a 200 OK response. Even that's
              oversimplifying in that part of the reason POST is wrong here, is
              because DELETE is right. But, no, I do not believe setting up an URL to
              listen for POST and taking action not based on anything in the POST
              request, is ever an example of the REST style, regardless of the nature
              of the resource.

              My real short answer is, "POST /cancel doesn't use REST's uniform
              interface."

              Neither is it an example of the REST style for POST to have a definition
              which varies by resource, iow sometimes it works without an entity
              (method-tunnel listener), sometimes it doesn't (create resource); even
              if hypertext-driven, such nonstandard method usage inevitably results
              in coupling between client and server, instead of relying on shared
              understanding of standardized method semantics. Fixing the POST to have
              an entity that's ignored might make it valid HTTP and solve this, but it
              still wouldn't be an example of the REST style, where the requested
              state change is transferred in the entity (with a few exceptions) -- not
              defined per resource by the method being tunneled through / triggered by
              POST.

              Conceptually, it still violates the identification of resources
              constraint, which is why it isn't visible regardless of how we implement
              it in terms of hypertext or method selection. Using the uniform
              interface means refactoring internal methods like 'cancel' to fit the
              resource/representation model of REST such that the request methods and
              response codes used map generically to those of your chosen protocol.
              Assigning them URIs to toggle with semantically-void messages is simply
              some other style not encompassed by REST's uniform interface constraint,
              not something that's superficially fixable by improving visibility or
              adding a 200 OK response.

              >
              > Never thought about HTTP/URI resource vs. REST resource, you say that
              > a URI that doesn't implement GET is probably (or always) not REST.
              >

              More like, "REST resources are concepts, not actions." Just using URIs
              doesn't bestow compliance with the identification of resources
              constraint upon a system, it's more nuanced than that. I can't imagine
              why a bona-fide REST resource would ever deliberately fail to have a
              retrieval mapping, no.

              I think the more important takeaway is method selection. We have DELETE
              in order to avoid such convoluted POST-based cancel mechanisms. It
              isn't RESTful to use POST when another method's semantics happen to
              closely describe user intent. From Roy's blog:

              "POST only becomes an issue when it is used in a situation for which
              some other method is ideally suited: e.g., retrieval of information
              that should be a representation of some resource (GET), complete
              replacement of a representation (PUT), or any of the other standardized
              methods that tell intermediaries something more valuable than 'this may
              change something.' The other methods are more valuable to
              intermediaries because they say something about how failures can be
              automatically handled and how intermediate caches can optimize their
              behavior. POST does not have those characteristics, but that doesn't
              mean we can live without it. POST serves many useful purposes in HTTP,
              including the general purpose of 'this action isn't worth
              standardizing.'"

              http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2009/it-is-okay-to-use-post

              Since DELETE is inherently self-descriptive of user intent to cancel an
              order, and is already "listened for" rather than requiring an entity be
              transferred, and has inherent idempotency matching the inherently
              idempotent user intent captured by a cancel request, DELETE must be the
              proper method for implementation using HTTP.

              Now, maybe your media type doesn't support DELETE, in which case
              contriving a /cancel URI may very well be called for until such time
              as it does. I won't fault anyone for doing this out of pragmatism, so
              long as they understand it as a mismatch, inconsistent with the
              architectural style they're following.

              REST is a tool which allows you, over time, to make improvements to the
              architecture you have in accordance with an idealized model. To me,
              accepting mismatches for what they are, is far more useful than coming
              up with convoluted explanations for why they aren't, for the sake of
              buzzword compliance. Change is easier when it's based on having been
              right all along, rather than based on having to admit error. ;-)

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