>> I get it, and I
agree. There needs to be a "REST for the REST of us."
Well, there are clearly issues, but I plan to
try. I'll get back to the list on it.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 8:52 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
unless we make it easy for these occupational programmers,
and entreprenuers to both 1.) understand REST and 2.) implement
REST they are
going to butcher the hell out of it, and your wonderful
design will become invisible to all the things that call
REST that, according to you (Roy) are not.
actually trying to help you all to head off this bastardization of
the Mashup crowd obliterates it because, after spending time
I see that it has a lot of true value. Capisce?
I get it, and I agree. There needs to be a "REST for the REST of us."
Obviously, we'd want those Ph.D.s who *do* understand REST at a deep level to
vet it for accuracy, but I'd love to see something concise that captured the key
points that the people doing the "engineering" could work from.
The tricky questions are:
a) Can you write something like that for a "general" audience, or does each
subgroup need something tailored for its needs in order for it to make
b) Can REST really be compressed to 1-3 pages without becoming a marketing
I don't know the answers -- which perhaps explains some of the skepticism
you received -- but I for one think any attempt to move in that direction would
-- Ernie P.