2 ms·
True REST abhors the idea of separate "standardized, machine-readable documentation" like WSDL. The biggest point of REST is that Hypertext Is The Engine Of App
by blasdel 17y ago
True REST abhors the idea of separate "standardized, machine-readable documentation" like WSDL. The biggest point of REST is that Hypertext Is The Engine Of Application State -- but unfortunately most people focus on bullshit naming conventions that are largely False REST.
Every response should contain hyperlinks to other resources, where the structure/metadata around it indicates what's on the other end. It should still be self-describing even if the URL is completely opaque -- "nice URLs" do not make you RESTful.
You should never need an "endpoint" or any documentation at all, whether machine or human-readable. I should be able to explore your whole API just using HTTP. Ideally you'd use the exact same URLs for your API and browser-human interfaces, using the Accept: header to get different representations of the response.
Almost everybody fucks this up, and just uses 'meaningful' URLs that you're expected to build yourself, and lots of sassy human documentation to tell you what the constants are.
- akeefer 17y agoI would then argue that REST and XML-RPC fit in different niches and solve different problems, even if there's some substantial overlap between them, so people like the OP that argue that REST completely obviates the need for XML-RPC is missing the point. Human exploration of a loosely-defined API is great for certain use cases, but doesn't provide the hard API contract and level of tooling that is what lead to the adoption of SOAP in the first place. So people like the OP that whine that people don't get it, and insinuates that everyone who uses XML-RPC instead of SOAP is some sort of unenlightened idiot, aren't making a compelling case if they just ignore the whole reason why SOAP is popular.