3 ms·
Highly debatable. A (too quick?) Darwinist perspective would tell us that the original ReST was not fit. And the "new" ReST (aka, JSON-RPC) is more fit. Fit in
by ocimbote 4y ago
Highly debatable. A (too quick?) Darwinist perspective would tell us that the original ReST was not fit. And the "new" ReST (aka, JSON-RPC) is more fit.
Fit in its current ecosystem, of course.
- int_19h 4y agoThat's exactly what I meant. The "new REST" appropriated the term because it's what's actually being used. The "old REST" didn't get a new term because it's not actually being used. There are still theoretical discussions around "old REST", but they all have "new REST isn't REST at all" as their core point, so the lack of new terminology is deliberate there.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mike256 4y agoWe use the old REST a lot and call that what you name "new REST" Json-RPC. What's so difficult about naming things what they are? I mean Devs do have some brain. That's why we are able to write cool software. But then why are some of us too stupid to get that REST thing right?
- incrudible 4y agoThere is already a standard called JSON RPC and it is not RESTful at all. RESTful means you are using HTTP verbs to convey some information. This is a “mostly stupid” idea, but it has caught on. RESTful is an now industry buzzword. So this is what the pragmatics implement. We may as well have a debate on what object oriented really means before implementing something, but again, the pragmatic will just create a structure that is broadly recognizable as object oriented.