4 ms·
In what way is it restless?
by nchmy 2mo ago
In what way is it restless?
- frollogaston 2mo agoListed under advantages in the article: "State lives on the server. It is not memoryless request-response: there is a process per connected client that remembers where it is. It is the opposite of htmx, which is deliberately stateless."
- nchmy 2mo agobut if state lives on the server and all you are delivering is html, how is that not "restful"?
- frollogaston 2mo agoOne of the main properties of REST: "Each request from any client contains all the information necessary to service the request, and the session state is held in the client." In practice, REST makes things like caching, load-balancing, and debugging easier at the cost of needing to send more state back and forth. In HTTP, there are ways to reduce or at least hide the repeated TCP handshakes.
- alt227 2mo agoI dont get what you are arguing. If state lives on the server you have added complexity of holding state for every user. This is exactly what REST was designed to remove.
- frollogaston 2mo agoThat's what I'm saying, the design in the article is not REST
- nchmy 2mo agoBut, again, if they're just sending up html that contains links etc, how is it not self-contained and restful? I suspect we can't really get to the bottom of this, as we don't know exactly what they're doing.
- frollogaston 2mo agoThe article links to a spec, and there are other implementations like this. If you consider this REST, what would you consider non-REST?