W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

RE: [rest-discuss] RE: Clarification on REST, GET and CGI

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:25:06 +0100
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, <rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, <fielding@apache.org>
Message-ID: <000901c233ac$66b95a50$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>

> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
> hmm.  Roy said that many CGI scripts suck because they don't 
> implement REST properly.  Don't think I'm misquoting him.  
> I'm pointing out that we don't look at the sucky CGI scripts 
> when determine web architecture because, well, they suck.


Yes, on the other hand worst practices and antipatterns are highly
valuable guides to developers in the trenches, especially given the
amount of trench and the way people tend to cut and paste web systems
together (CGI being a prime example). For example, saying it's better to
not invent a new URI scheme is not quite the same as saying an arbitrary
new scheme sucks (cue: reason). As one example, the OO world has learned
much via antipatterns. Today, I suggest that saying non RESTful CGIs
suck is less useful that concrete examples; REST is not exactly
mainstream thinking yet.

There's a good amount of physical architecture in the world that is
based on what not to do as much as what to do. One thing the TAG could
say to the web community is, look we can't do it all, you guys start
writing the anti-patterns down and let us concentrate on the
architecture in a positive form.

Bill de hÓra 

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 03:26:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:57 UTC