4 ms·

Yes, The article is talking about REST as in "JSON RPC over HTTP" as opposed to REST as the person who came up with it (Roy Fielding) intended. If you are worr

Yes, The article is talking about REST as in "JSON RPC over HTTP" as opposed to REST as the person who came up with it (Roy Fielding) intended. If you are worrying about URL readability you aren't doing REST.

rdsubhas 9y ago
Spot on. RESTful URLs are not to be treated like SEO URLs. But unfortunately most people don't see the difference. One example in the article is especially harmful (/students/<id>/courses/physics for querying). The single best slideshare I've found on REST is Teach a Dog to REST. Old but gold. https://www.slideshare.net/landlessness/teach-a-dog-to-rest https://www.slideshare.net/landlessness/teach-a-dog-to-rest (And a shameful plug - https://medium.com/@rdsubhas/pitiful-restful-urls-5d576ffccb98 https://medium.com/@rdsubhas/pitiful-restful-urls-5d576ffccb...)
- rimliu 9y ago
  > RESTful URLs are not to be treated like SEO URLs But it does not hurt to have them human-readable.
  - rdsubhas 9y ago
    It does hurt. Examples in the article linked above.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Most web apps (outside of websites themselves, which are a kind of very simple application) aren't HATEOAS, so Roy's thesis has less purchase on their design.
PeterisP 9y ago
In most contexts what you actually need is REST as in "JSON RPC over HTTP" instead of REST as Roy Fielding intended. So the recommendations in the article are actually valid and useful, but we'd need to come up with another name to properly distinguish which "REST" we're talking about, at least unless/until one of these usages fades into obscurity.
- dozzie 9y ago
  > we'd need to come up with another name to properly distinguish which "REST" we're talking about "Underspecified, broken half-implementation of RPC" is quite precise, but most of the programmers don't like being reminded that they implement a brain-dead idea. I never understood why people don't use one of the already-defined RPC protocols, rolling instead their own versions (each different) that don't even signal errors properly.

rdsubhas 9y ago

Spot on. RESTful URLs are not to be treated like SEO URLs. But unfortunately most people don't see the difference. One example in the article is especially harmful (/students/<id>/courses/physics for querying). The single best slideshare I've found on REST is Teach a Dog to REST. Old but gold. https://www.slideshare.net/landlessness/teach-a-dog-to-rest https://www.slideshare.net/landlessness/teach-a-dog-to-rest (And a shameful plug - https://medium.com/@rdsubhas/pitiful-restful-urls-5d576ffccb98 https://medium.com/@rdsubhas/pitiful-restful-urls-5d576ffccb...)

rimliu 9y ago
> RESTful URLs are not to be treated like SEO URLs But it does not hurt to have them human-readable.
- rdsubhas 9y ago
  It does hurt. Examples in the article linked above.
barrkel 9y ago
Most web apps (outside of websites themselves, which are a kind of very simple application) aren't HATEOAS, so Roy's thesis has less purchase on their design.

PeterisP 9y ago

In most contexts what you actually need is REST as in "JSON RPC over HTTP" instead of REST as Roy Fielding intended. So the recommendations in the article are actually valid and useful, but we'd need to come up with another name to properly distinguish which "REST" we're talking about, at least unless/until one of these usages fades into obscurity.

dozzie 9y ago
> we'd need to come up with another name to properly distinguish which "REST" we're talking about "Underspecified, broken half-implementation of RPC" is quite precise, but most of the programmers don't like being reminded that they implement a brain-dead idea. I never understood why people don't use one of the already-defined RPC protocols, rolling instead their own versions (each different) that don't even signal errors properly.