Re: Interfaces

Hi,

while I do not have a good term, I suggest looking at this in terms  
of the question: what role do resources play with regard to a RESTful  
application.

Hmm, just thinking this: why not indeed use "interface" or API and at  
the same time pointing out that the API-as-set-methods idea is  
useless in REST anyhow.

You might also look at the issue that way: what does a client  
programer program against (what does she have to know) in the REST  
world?
The answer is: the semantics of the hypermedia used by the  
application (in order to execute the application). Actually, the  
question of what resources there are in an application should not be  
part of the shared knowledge between client and server since that  
resource set can change at runtime.

Bottom line: do not describe a REST application in terms of the  
resources exposed (except for a small set of enry points of course).

Just thoughts, hope they help.

Jan


On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:

>
> On 3/27/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm seeing some confusion when people say "interface" in relation to
>> the Web; a RESTifarian will say that the interface is uniform --
>> e.g., GET, PUT, DELETE, POST -- but there's also a colloquial use of
>> "interface" to indicate the set of resources that a Web application
>> exposes; e.g., "the Flickr REST interface."
>>
>> Anybody have a better term for the latter (that isn't too unnatural)?
>
> Still seems an improvement on calling everything an API, though having
> said that...
>
> "Interface" seems not-inaccurate for both cases, so (in lieu of a more
> distinctive alternative) how about using qualifiers, maybe "common" or
> "base" interface for the HTTP methods, "domain" or even "application"
> interface for Flickr etc..?
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://dannyayers.com
>

Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 21:20:44 UTC