4 ms·
Ok - fair enough. SOAP sucks. But we've known to use GET for operations with no side-effects, and POST for operations that change stuff for many years now, wit
by emperorpenguin 15y ago
Ok - fair enough. SOAP sucks.
But we've known to use GET for operations with no side-effects, and POST for operations that change stuff for many years now, without needing to attach a name to it, throw PUT/DELETE into the mix, or CRUDdifying every operation.
It's the verb part that I really don't get. That, and the general level of excitement surrounding REST. Why are there so damn many articles like this one?
- artsrc 15y agoThe advantage of the PUT/DELETE verbs is that they are idempotent. If they fail an intermediary or you can safely just apply them again on the same or a different server. The author of this article has a different understanding of REST than I do. For instance I strongly disagree with this: "One option is not acceptable as a REST response format, except in very specific cases: HTML, or any other format which is meant for human consumption and is not easily processed by clients." I think well marked up HTML is potentially the best response format as long as it is easily understood by clients. And I think this has nothing much to do with REST. Naturally I become motivated to write my own article about REST spelling out how my understanding is is different. Thus the number of articles on REST multiples as a chain reaction until 99.99% of the articles on the internet are about REST. But my 1 year gave me a bad sleep last night dampening the my motivation and saving the world.