Re: [rest-discuss] the meaning of stateless
- On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Brian Craft <craft.brian@...> wrote:
>> > Fielding's definition didn't do much for me, because the terms aren'tThis is what I'm talking about when I suggest focusing on the
>> > adequately defined,
>> They are, and the definition is most definitely adequate, trust me on
> I don't agree. Take this statement, for example:
> "Each request from client to server must contain all of the information
> necessary to understand the request, and cannot take advantage of any stored
> context on the server. "
> What does "understand" mean in this sentence? I'm not aware of a technical
> definition of "understand" as it applies to computer systems, and it's not
> defined in the paper.
interface, aka the message.
HTTP messages are generally sent between parties that know nothing of
each other, so "understand" here means exactly that; that the meaning
of the message can be understood by the recipient so its clear what
the sender is asking be done when it sends the message.
> Again, take the "query by POST" pattern. The eventualIt is, but the *meaning* of future messages doesn't change if the
> GET depends on a previous POST. Does the server "understand" a request that
> depends on a previous request? What about "stored context"? One would
> reasonably believe that POSTing a query creates stored context on the server
> which later requests may take advantage of. But this sentence says that it
> must not "take advantage of any stored context on the server." I assume this
> apparent contradiction is due to some different use of terms, that "stored
> context" doesn't mean what one would reasonably assume it means, or
> something. If this is a different usage of the terms, they should be defined
> My current guess is that "understand" means that the communications layer
> can read the request and generate a valid response, including the case where
> the POST goes missing and it must return a 404: that it still "understands"
> the request even though the app can't process it since the depends on a
> previous request.
> But then it gets really odd with claims like "the server doesn’t have to
> manage resource usage across requests." How is a POSTed query not a resource
> on the server that must be managed across requests?
state of that resource changes.
- Like the SMS example, this is another case of trying to avoid server state (i.e. be RESTful) in cases where the server needs to keep a permanent record of the transaction anyway, one per client. Statelessness is about avoiding the word "my". Pay for the items in my basket, vs Pay for the items in basket #54203. Replicating session files between load-balanced servers may even be cheaper than replicating database-based resources.As the linked post says: "Most of the value cases for REST apply to repeatable responses, not an application that can't be reused, can't be transformed, and can't be shared.""I do not believe in trying to apply all of REST's constraints unless there is a reason for doing so."Just because an architecture is good for document retrieval, doesn't mean it should be mindlessly applied to everything else too.Perhaps the next Roy Fielding can come along and deduce the optimum architectural constraints for a private, non-repeatable, yet scalable application, and from these direct the evolution of HTTP just as HTTP 1.1 was informed.
On 9 May 2013, at 19:27, Matt McClure <matthewlmcclure@...> wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen@...> wrote:
Eric Bowman wrote:
> My nutshell explanation of REST from 50,000ft is that a system
> designed to manipulate shopping carts MUST be based on
> transferring actual representations of shopping-cart contents.
I hesitated to get back into this issue after having lost an argument
with Mark Baker about it a couple of years ago, but: the typical
behavior of a system that saves shopping cart contents on servers
(e.g. Amazon) is to send a representation of the shopping cart
contents back to the client to confirm the order, in which case, a
representation of the shopping cart contents then gets sent back to
the server from the client.
Would e.g. Mark and Eric agree that this is RESTful?I've also been following this conversation as a lurker. If I understood some of the earlier comments, it sounded as though someone made a case that a request like:POST /cart/12345/purchaseContent-Length: 0would be stateful and undesirable for conformance with REST whereas:POST /purchaseContent-Length: 1234items=...&in_quantities=...&with_payment_method=...would be more RESTful and less stateful.I guess I'm unclear why the former would violate statelessness. The state in the former is resource state, identified by an implicit /cart/12345 resource (assume I got the /cart/12345/purchase link from the cart resource).To contrast:POST /purchaseContent-Length: 0Cookie: client=12345seems decidedly stateful because it requires shared state identified by the ID in the Cookie header rather than the URI to disambiguate which thing the client wants to purchase.It seems to me that a client need not include all of the detail of the cart contents and payment method in the purchase request to conform with a statelessness constraint. I'd be happy to hear why I'm wrong if I am.Matt--