4 ms·
Embracing REST with mind, body and soul (Rails and the new respond_with)
- jamesbritt 17y agoDo folks here buy into the REST == CRUD mapping the way it's basked into Rails?
- evdawg 17y agoI don't know... do you want to elaborate a little more on that?
- jamesbritt 17y agoFor example, the pairing of PUT with 'update' , with only POST allowed to create new resource, versus allowing clients to PUT a new resource (effectively creating them) when given the proper URL. See, for example, http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForREST.aspx http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForRE... and in particular the idea that REST is about documents, not databases. "The data model is _not_ the resource model," as one comment there puts it. Also, CRUD makes no allowance for HEAD and OPTIONS, as if they don't even exist. I see too, in digging around for links, that this has been discussed on HN before (big surprise, no?): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629843 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629843