W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: REST and HTTP, was: [ietf-http-wg] <none>

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:23:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiKByDLxzg9yN55tV2jgJ-VpWWrnJ55-vymjiP6MxqYuw@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:03 UTC