3 ms·

> And REST as Dr. Fielding says it is is not as practical to implement as it should be. REST is literally a backwards description of the web and browsers as we

• steveklabnik 11y ago
  You are downvoted, but also accurate. HTTP 1.0 happened, then Fielding did his work, informing HTTP 1.1. Chronologically speaking, REST is something that describes the web and how it succeeds. Section 6.3 is even about which parts of HTTP are RESTful or not http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluation.htm#sec_6_3 http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluatio...
  • jholman 11y ago
    > Chronologically speaking, REST is something that describes the web and how it succeeds. Chronologically speaking, REST is an attempt to fit the relatively-organic growth of the web into a systematized conceptual framework, and a totally untested theory about how it succeeds. On the first count, it obviously is incorrect. You even pointed out that Fielding points this out! Any part of the web that uses cookies is not RESTful! So REST is not something that "describes the web", it describes an idealized version of the web that in fact has only a tiny fraction of the functionality that the actual web has. On the second, as far as I'm aware, there is absolutely no evidence supporting Fielding's claims about the relationship between the properties of REST and the success of the web. We may or may not find his points persuasive (I do find his points somewhat persuasive), but please remember that this is someone's thesis, in every sense of that word.