3 ms·
What is it about CRUD over HTTP that drives some people nuts? A bit too much overhead, not perfect for high performance/low level data channels, and not perfect
by throwaway5752 10y ago
What is it about CRUD over HTTP that drives some people nuts? A bit too much overhead, not perfect for high performance/low level data channels, and not perfectly standardized. But it piggybacks over a wildly popular level 7 protocol that takes care of security in a well tested way, already plays well with proxies/load balancers, has thousands of implementations in most languages, is well understood by network admins and usually already handled if you're shipping software to customers. It has a lot going for it.
Sure - everybody ends up reimplementing async jobs and polling... some people prefer XML/json/edn/etc... some people get pedantic on 3xx and non-200 2xx status codes... differing standards on referencing other objects/collections/etc... some people use POST where they should use PUT (or insist upon using PATCH and OPTIONS). It has just as many faults.
But it's wildly successful for are reason, and dismissing it probably is going to result in relearning a bunch of hard-earned lessons about integrating across lots of very heterogeneous systems and environments.
- discreteevent 10y agoIt's wildy successful for a reason, which is that its primary usee is by web browsers for document transfer. And as a result firewalls allow http over port 80 or https over 443. For a lot of cases you simply cannot communicate at all unless you use http. The reason for its success is that there is simply no other choice whether it's good or bad.