- From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:23:19 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Since REST is a particular style constraint on Web Service protocol design, the requirements of REST should logically be a subset of the requirements for unconstrained Web Service protocol design. On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-07-25 01:26, Eric J. Bowman wrote: >> >> Samuel Erdtman wrote: >>> >>> >>> Have the requirements for REST APIs been considered? >>> >> >> Doesn't look like they have. My impression, after catching up on 100's >> of posts, is that plenty of folks are ready to throw out the baby (REST) >> with the bathwater (HTTP 1). >> >> Leading me to give +1 to PHK's point, echoed by others, that starting >> with proposals before establishing goals seems to be skipping some >> steps, i.e. moving too fast. >> >> Intermediaries aren't optional to the REST style, they're integral to >> the success of the Web. HTTP 2 should not, IMO, result in a new and >> incompatible architectural style which only scales well for those big >> companies with a global DC presence and CDNs. >> ... > > > Do you have REST-related concerns beyond the ones related to intermediaries > (which I share)? > > Best regards, Julian > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 12:23:50 UTC