7 ms·
I don't think that was the entire point. But who cares? Loose coupling is of little benefit to the client in a client-server pair that are implemented by the sa
by kareemsabri 4y ago
I don't think that was the entire point. But who cares? Loose coupling is of little benefit to the client in a client-server pair that are implemented by the same company (which presumably Fielding wasn't picturing). There are other benefits people get from REST. Semantically understandable APIs, handlers that do one thing, predictable interfaces (this is close to as valuable as discoverable imo). I don't really get your point re: casuistry. The implementation of REST as practiced by the industry is largely pragmatic. The article appears to be arguing for REST purity.
- masklinn 4y ago> I don't think that was the entire point. But who cares? People who like language to have meaning? > which presumably Fielding wasn't picturing Fielding was describing an architectural style. Although there may have been an element of advocacy, at the end of the day whether you used it or not was not his concern. > The implementation of REST as practiced by the industry is largely pragmatic. In the same sense that the implementation of airships in Boeing’s 747 is largely pragmatic, except for the part where Boeing doesn’t misscall their plane an airship. > The article appears to be arguing for REST purity. Much like saying a serval is not a dog is arguing for dog purity, yes.
- hyperhopper 4y agoThe benefit is then opening up the coupling to other clients. Like how Reddit used to have tons of apps before they started locking down all new functionality.
- kareemsabri 4y agoTwitter had a ton of clients despite a REST API that was exactly like the OP was saying was not REST.