Re: A Critical Analysis of REST APIs for "Transaction Systems"

On 2017-01-22 19:00, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> Hi Anders,
>
> I found your analysis interesting and useful.

Thanx.

> I must say though, if you conclude that REST is not suitable for this use
 > case why not use something entirely different like JSON-RPC? Your proposed
 > new transport seems like it would be a great candidate.


Maybe I want to be different? :-):-)

No that was just a joke, JSON-RPC seems to map directly to the POST profile (note that there is a GET profile in my scheme as well).
I say "seems" since the JSON-RPC spec is extremely terse and version 2 doesn't actually specify a HTTP binding at all!

That I in my own implementations do not want to use JSON-RPC is because it "interferes" which what I consider "sacred", the messages.

JSON-RPC:

{"jsonrpc": "2.0", "method": "PayMeNow", "params": ["amount": "265.00"], "id": 6}


"Anders-RPC":

{
   "@context": "https://standards.org/payments",
   "@qualifier": "PayMeNow",
   "amount": "265.00",
   "id", 6
}

JCS (The signature scheme) is incompatible with the JSON-RPC specification as it stands.  The same goes for JWS (JOSE).

The absence of security solutions makes JSON-RPC less useful for Internet-based transaction systems.


There are other things related to my "Message Centric" scheme which I haven't described and that is that if you for example do a postMessage() in a browser there is no return value *which doesn't map at all to REST or JSON-RPC*.

Anders

> Adrian
>
> On 22 January 2017 at 18:01, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Maybe of some interest...
>
>     https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/web/REST-in-peace.html <https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/web/REST-in-peace.html>
>
>     Enjoy!
>     Anders
>
>

Received on Sunday, 22 January 2017 20:23:26 UTC