2 ms·

It also doesn't provide much benefit over a plain RPC-like interface, because, for practical reasons, the webcam will be coded to send requests directly to http

It also doesn't provide much benefit over a plain RPC-like interface, because, for practical reasons, the webcam will be coded to send requests directly to https://example.com/report-problem https://example.com/report-problem and https://example.com/update-frame https://example.com/update-frame (the "bookmarks"). If you want to change those URLs, your best hope is that the webcam will understand a 307 or 308 redirect.

JimDabell 10y ago
RPC vs REST is an entirely different argument. We're talking about REST best practices here, not "let's do RPC instead". There's no reason for the webcam to hard-code URIs, and that's a violation of the architectural constraints. Just arbitrarily deciding to disregard facets of the architectural pattern without giving a reason does not add to this discussion. None of this relates to whether or not you need futuristic AI or human intervention. I think from the example, it's pretty clear you need neither for a REST API.
- vfaronov 10y ago
  > We're talking about REST best practices here, not "let's do RPC instead". I don't think so. Avernar above seems to argue against REST as an architectural style (RPC being the default as everybody uses it). I thought you were trying to defend REST with your example, and I wanted to point out a weakness in that example. > There's no reason for the webcam to hard-code URIs, and that's a violation of the architectural constraints. The webcam has to hardcode some URIs (entry points). Consider that it could be using other services: perhaps a social network to post updates on. Then it must hardcode another entry point URI. But at that point -- and since every resource is supposedly independent and only explicit relations matter -- why can't the webcam treat the "problem report service" and the "update frame service" as two entirely separate services to hardcode? Which constraint of REST does this violate? In your example, insisting that the webcam go through the entry point doesn't even buy the server a lot of flexibility. You reduce the client's knowledge from 2 URLs to 1 URL -- a URL that you may still want to change etc. An extra HTTP roundtrip every time can well be an unpleasant overhead. HTTP client caches are sparsely supported and notoriously complex (RFC 7234 is 41 pages long). Rolling your own cache is, well, rolling your own. And then there is the human problem. I was blown away by a discussion [1] where people reported using cryptography to prevent in-house clients from hardcoding URLs. I was also saddened when I read the JSON API spec [2] -- a great example of REST, I think -- only to discover that most existing implementations [3] disregard the linking aspect and hardcode the URL structure that the spec uses for examples. But this is not a complaint against your webcam example so much as it is a general hurdle with REST. [1] http://blog.ploeh.dk/2013/05/01/rest-lesson-learned-avoid-hackable-urls/ http://blog.ploeh.dk/2013/05/01/rest-lesson-learned-avoid-ha... [2] http://jsonapi.org/ http://jsonapi.org/ [3] http://jsonapi.org/implementations/ http://jsonapi.org/implementations/ > None of this relates to whether or not you need futuristic AI or human intervention. I think from the example, it's pretty clear you need neither for a REST API. Absolutely.

JimDabell 10y ago

RPC vs REST is an entirely different argument. We're talking about REST best practices here, not "let's do RPC instead". There's no reason for the webcam to hard-code URIs, and that's a violation of the architectural constraints. Just arbitrarily deciding to disregard facets of the architectural pattern without giving a reason does not add to this discussion. None of this relates to whether or not you need futuristic AI or human intervention. I think from the example, it's pretty clear you need neither for a REST API.

vfaronov 10y ago
> We're talking about REST best practices here, not "let's do RPC instead". I don't think so. Avernar above seems to argue against REST as an architectural style (RPC being the default as everybody uses it). I thought you were trying to defend REST with your example, and I wanted to point out a weakness in that example. > There's no reason for the webcam to hard-code URIs, and that's a violation of the architectural constraints. The webcam has to hardcode some URIs (entry points). Consider that it could be using other services: perhaps a social network to post updates on. Then it must hardcode another entry point URI. But at that point -- and since every resource is supposedly independent and only explicit relations matter -- why can't the webcam treat the "problem report service" and the "update frame service" as two entirely separate services to hardcode? Which constraint of REST does this violate? In your example, insisting that the webcam go through the entry point doesn't even buy the server a lot of flexibility. You reduce the client's knowledge from 2 URLs to 1 URL -- a URL that you may still want to change etc. An extra HTTP roundtrip every time can well be an unpleasant overhead. HTTP client caches are sparsely supported and notoriously complex (RFC 7234 is 41 pages long). Rolling your own cache is, well, rolling your own. And then there is the human problem. I was blown away by a discussion [1] where people reported using cryptography to prevent in-house clients from hardcoding URLs. I was also saddened when I read the JSON API spec [2] -- a great example of REST, I think -- only to discover that most existing implementations [3] disregard the linking aspect and hardcode the URL structure that the spec uses for examples. But this is not a complaint against your webcam example so much as it is a general hurdle with REST. [1] http://blog.ploeh.dk/2013/05/01/rest-lesson-learned-avoid-hackable-urls/ http://blog.ploeh.dk/2013/05/01/rest-lesson-learned-avoid-ha... [2] http://jsonapi.org/ http://jsonapi.org/ [3] http://jsonapi.org/implementations/ http://jsonapi.org/implementations/ > None of this relates to whether or not you need futuristic AI or human intervention. I think from the example, it's pretty clear you need neither for a REST API. Absolutely.