4 ms·
> think strict, automatically-checked schemata for APIs are very valuable, so I'd prefer to use something like thrift or even WS-* rather than REST. Strict, a
by lloeki 12y ago
> think strict, automatically-checked schemata for APIs are very valuable, so I'd prefer to use something like thrift or even WS-* rather than REST.
Strict, automatically-checked schemata for APIs are perfectly doable with REST, JSON or whatever Protobuf flavor. OTOH automatically-generated schemata behemoths have been created with SOAP and WS-* that I have very creative ideas about how to deal with and dispose of.
As for the easy-in-the-browser part (whether it is for tests or implementation), it was merely a side effect of reusing the HTTP spec semantics as a common-ground general purpose vocabulary. REST in itself doesn't even mandate HTTP.
- lmm 12y ago> Strict, automatically-checked schemata for APIs are perfectly doable with REST, JSON or whatever Protobuf flavor. Up to a point, but having a single standard that's built into all the tooling is huge. Hopefully one or other approach will "win" in the REST world and we'll start to see some convergence. > As for the easy-in-the-browser part (whether it is for tests or implementation), it was merely a side effect of reusing the HTTP spec semantics as a common-ground general purpose vocabulary. Intended or otherwise, it was a big advantage, and I think it was the real reason for "REST"'s success.