4 ms·

HTTP is an implementation of REST. REST is an architectural style defined by Roy Fielding in his PhD thesis. The point of using common verbs for common actions

by sh1mmer 18y ago

HTTP is an implementation of REST. REST is an architectural style defined by Roy Fielding in his PhD thesis. The point of using common verbs for common actions and sticking to it is that you get to be able to predict the interface. The overloaded POST vs PUT thing is much less of an issue than other un-RESTful things. The reason not to use RPC style interfaces is that you hide data behind the interface. One of the major wins of RESTful architecture is to make all resources addressable. E.g. I can directly refer to data using a URI.

ajross 18y ago
Except that the problem is that precisely none of those features were invented by the REST people. This is the way sane network applications have worked since the beginning of time. What REST introduced is a dogma that said not only "this is good" (something no one agrees with) but "you must do it precisely this way", which is just ridiculous. Flatly: there isn't that much innovation in REST. It's a good idea that can be expressed in a few short sentences. It doesn't deserve books, and it doesn't deserve the priesthood that has grown up around it. When sane ideas start to smell like heavyweight frameworks, they've outlived their usefulness.
- sh1mmer 18y ago
  I disagree. REST created a framework, one implementation of which is HTTP. You can implement HTTP in a more or less RESTful manner. Advocates of REST propose it as the most effective way to provide a Web Service. Strangely, advocates of SOAP say something similar. This isn't about dogma. If you are insecure about people pointing out that some people claiming to adhere to REST aren't that's your hang up. I am all about using technology in the most effective manner, this isn't about the religion of one system over another, it's about seeing the benefits of a RESTful architecture. Implementing in a partly RESTful way only gets you part of the benefits.
- bct 18y ago
  > What REST introduced is a dogma that said not only "this is good" (something no one agrees with) but "you must do it precisely this way" REST is just a description for one good way to build certain types of networked applications. I don't think anybody claims that Roy Fielding invented the concept, or that it's the only way to build anything. If there are people that treat it as a dogma, I don't think you can blame REST; they're just the same loud and obnoxious people that treat everything as a dogma (and usually don't understand it very well).

by sh1mmer 18y ago

ajross 18y ago

Except that the problem is that precisely none of those features were invented by the REST people. This is the way sane network applications have worked since the beginning of time. What REST introduced is a dogma that said not only "this is good" (something no one agrees with) but "you must do it precisely this way", which is just ridiculous. Flatly: there isn't that much innovation in REST. It's a good idea that can be expressed in a few short sentences. It doesn't deserve books, and it doesn't deserve the priesthood that has grown up around it. When sane ideas start to smell like heavyweight frameworks, they've outlived their usefulness.

sh1mmer 18y ago
I disagree. REST created a framework, one implementation of which is HTTP. You can implement HTTP in a more or less RESTful manner. Advocates of REST propose it as the most effective way to provide a Web Service. Strangely, advocates of SOAP say something similar. This isn't about dogma. If you are insecure about people pointing out that some people claiming to adhere to REST aren't that's your hang up. I am all about using technology in the most effective manner, this isn't about the religion of one system over another, it's about seeing the benefits of a RESTful architecture. Implementing in a partly RESTful way only gets you part of the benefits.
bct 18y ago
> What REST introduced is a dogma that said not only "this is good" (something no one agrees with) but "you must do it precisely this way" REST is just a description for one good way to build certain types of networked applications. I don't think anybody claims that Roy Fielding invented the concept, or that it's the only way to build anything. If there are people that treat it as a dogma, I don't think you can blame REST; they're just the same loud and obnoxious people that treat everything as a dogma (and usually don't understand it very well).