Re: More Thoughts on Links and Operation Subclasses

Our last discussion failed, but this discussion on Ryan's excellent
points seems to have drilled down to a bite sized point that I'll
offer a quick observation on...

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
> Yeah, DELETE is very specific and it might look as if it doesn't have any value. There exist, however, APIs that archive resources that are being deleted. In such a case, I think it does make sense to qualify a DELETE with an ArchiveOperation or something similar. Basically the operation tells the client what kind of consequences it can expect if it invokes an operation.

What you describe there is not REST. With REST, the client only knows
that a DELETE was performed upon receiving a 200 response, not that a
DELETE was performed along with some other stuff that is indicated
separately (either in-band in the message, or out-of-band via
information received in a prior interaction). *Just* DELETE, as
defined in the HTTP spec. The "other stuff" is totally permissible in
REST, but is an *implementation detail* hidden behind the uniform
interface.

Received on Thursday, 30 January 2014 14:21:23 UTC