Re: RESTful


On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:13:44PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> So I'll confess to an element of possible brain fade there. 

Join the club. 8-)

> The point I was trying to make is that Roy describes REST as an
> architectural *style*, not an architecture. He describes and architectural
> style as a set of constraints that induce desirable properties in
> architectures that conform to that style (parapharising and without
> reference). He describes the contraints of REST in section 5.1 of his thesis
> as (in summary) Layered-Uniform-Client-Cache-Stateless-Server-CodeOnDemand.
> The narrative in 5.1.5 discusses the constraint of Uniform Interface and the
> desirable properties it induces. Certainly, on the Web the uniform interface
> to resources are the classic HTTP operation... but as a stylistic constraint
> it has broader utility and is looser that one particular generic interface.

Ah, I see what you're saying.  But I respectfully disagree, because in
5.1.5 he makes reference to "The REST interface", as well as to
"hypermedia as the engine of application state" which I'm confident
requires interface semantics (roughly) equivalent to GET/POST/etc..

It would have been nice for him to spell it out though.  I know a couple
of people who thought that TCP presented a "uniform interface". 8-)

> Hope that at least makes the (marginal) point I was trying to make a little
> clearer. It's also quite conceivable that I have mis-understood Roy's use of
> the term 'architectural style'.

From my POV, it appears so, but thanks for clarifying.

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.     

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 15:06:10 UTC