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

Re: [rest-discuss] RFC for REST - Leonard's book?

Expand Messages
  • Nic James Ferrier
    ... Which is why you need editorial input. And why the wiki is a good place to collect stuff. But the wiki seems to have fallen into disuse. I tried it this
    Message 1 of 58 , Nov 7, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@...> writes:

      >> > I'm talking about a clear overview that doesn't use unclear terms
      >> > like "Hypermedia as the engine of application state."
      >>
      >> Besides its lyrical beauty (IMHO), how else would you name that
      >> constraint? Also, I really doubt that more verbose explanations help
      >> in understanding.
      >
      > Probably a good example. How to find the language to balance
      > precision (exactitude?) with clarity.
      >
      > I think I'd support Nic's position that lots of smaller, clear examples
      > would help back up explanations. PIcking the right ones is the
      > challenge.

      Which is why you need editorial input.

      And why the wiki is a good place to collect stuff.

      But the wiki seems to have fallen into disuse.

      I tried it this eve. and it's very slow. Can it be hosted somewhere
      faster? Who looks after it?


      --
      Nic Ferrier
      http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk for all your tapsell ferrier needs
    • Mike Schinkel
      ... Well, there are clearly issues, but I plan to try. I ll get back to the list on it. -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
      Message 58 of 58 , Nov 8, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >> 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.
         
         


        From: Dr. Ernie Prabhakar [mailto:drernie@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:23 AM
        To: Mike Schinkel
        Cc: 'REST Discuss'
        Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] RFC for REST?

        Hi Mike,

        On Nov 7, 2006, at 8:52 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
        Which means, unless we make it easy for these occupational programmers,
        power users, and entreprenuers to both 1.) understand REST and 2.) implement
        REST they are going to butcher the hell out of it, and your wonderful
        architectural design will become invisible to all the things that call
        themselves REST that, according to you (Roy) are not.

        So I'm actually trying to help you all to head off this bastardization of
        REST before the Mashup crowd obliterates it because, after spending time
        learning it, 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 actionable sense?

        b) Can REST really be compressed to 1-3 pages without becoming a marketing brochure? :-)

        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 be worthwhile.

        Good luck!

        -- Ernie P.

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