W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

RE: RESTful

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:13:44 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A07020@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Hi Mark,

So I'll confess to an element of possible brain fade there. 

The point I was trying to make is that Roy describes REST as an
architectural *style*, not an architecture. He describes and architectural
style as a set of constraints that induce desirable properties in
architectures that conform to that style (parapharising and without
reference). He describes the contraints of REST in section 5.1 of his thesis
as (in summary) Layered-Uniform-Client-Cache-Stateless-Server-CodeOnDemand.
The narrative in 5.1.5 discusses the constraint of Uniform Interface and the
desirable properties it induces. Certainly, on the Web the uniform interface
to resources are the classic HTTP operation... but as a stylistic constraint
it has broader utility and is looser that one particular generic interface.

Hope that at least makes the (marginal) point I was trying to make a little
clearer. It's also quite conceivable that I have mis-understood Roy's use of
the term 'architectural style'.

Cheers,

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 03 September 2002 13:49
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Dan Brickley'; Jacek Kopecky; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RESTful
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Stuart,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 11:17:32AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > BTW - I preceded RESTful with 'so-called' not to be disrespectful, but
> > because I think that Fieldings REST Architectural *Style* has broader
> > application than the world of http accessible resource - ie. its about
more
> > than just the resources that support GET, PUT, POST, DELETE... e.g.
consider
> > the sorts of resources identified by URI from none http schemes eg.
> > telnet:example.org, ldap:example.org ... 
> 
> REST doesn't preclude other systems from using specific interfaces, but
> those are not part of REST.  REST's connector semantics can be used to
> access any resource, in any scheme.  It defines the most generic
> interface possible, so you need look no further for "broader
> application" than HTTP's methods. 8-)
> 
> Roy wrote;
> 
>   'If an application needs the additional capabilities of another
>    architecture, it can implement and invoke those capabilities as a
>    separate system running in parallel, similar to how the Web
>    architecture interfaces with "telnet" and "mailto" resources.'
> 
> -- 
>
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5
_3_2
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 13:18:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT