Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne on REST-*
- 2009/10/30 Nick Gall <nick.gall@...>
>Which bit of a Linux library isn't machine processable? The API is
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...> wrote:
> > Linux does have some REALLY specific formal documentation, the APIs, as does windows. Something like Java has the APIs and the associated Javadoc. These are very definate elements that produce compile time errors and with a decent IDE can be automagically used.
> Steve, we must be using "formal" and "informal" in different ways. All
> the Linux API and Windows API documentation I have seen, I would
> consider "informal", ie not machine-processable and not formally
the technical part, the bit that blows up at compile time. The API
isn't the documentation, that just helps you to use the API.
>Really, so where is the stuff I can get that blows up at compile time?
> Most of the RESTful interface (API if you will) docI've seen are at
> least as rigorous, but just as informal as the Windows API
> documentation and Linux API documentation I have seen.
I could read the stuff and then create my own mocks and contracts
(and maybe make a mistake) but there is nothing that I can directly
import into a development environment or design environment to act as
the basis for interaction.
>Including myself, it really is pretty good quality documentation.
> Thousands of developers seem to successfully use the documentation of
> Google's RESTful interfaces at code.google.com.
> I guess I'm not getting the distinction you seem to be trying to make here.
1) Formal and Technical interfaces are machine readable mechanisms for
verifying whether your consumer is valid at some basic level
2) Google's way is great, Yahoo's way is different and there are lots
of different ways. Wouldn't a standard way, even a standard
_informal_ way of documenting this stuff be a good idea?
> -- Nick
- Agree with Steve
From: Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...>
Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 6:56:28 AM
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Anne on REST-*
2009/11/8 Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@...>
>A claim without much evidence. I'd argue that my claim that specific
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
> > This is the bit that surprises me about REST advocates. On the one
> > hand they champion an extremely rigid and limited interface as being
> > the right way to do things and in the same breath claim that rigid
> > interfaces are a bad thing.
> I made a mistake in terminology there 'rigid' should have been
> So, REST advocates prefer the uniform interface over the specific
> because the
> uniform interface has advantages over the specific
interfaces with tight definitions have significant advantages over
undocumented dynamic interfaces. 802.11x, HTTP, GSM, etc, etc, etc
> Sorry for the confusion.
>  <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_5
> Jan Algermissen
> Mail: algermissen@...
> Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
> Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: