4 ms·
If you do this, you are basically doing RPC, so in reality you've given up any RESTfulness.
by vladharbuz 11y ago
If you do this, you are basically doing RPC, so in reality you've given up any RESTfulness.
- lmm 11y agoYou've gained the useful parts of REST - lower transport overhead than SOAP, and being able to call it from a browser.
- geon 11y agoPlus, for the CRUD parts, it's still REST.
- michaelmior 11y agoWhat's stopping you from calling SOAP APIs from a browser? Most use HTTP as the transport mechanism.
- lmm 11y agoSOAP APIs tend to use POST even for readonly methods, and tend to use aggressively validated XML that's much harder to write by hand than typical "REST" JSON.
- michaelmior 11y agoI'm sure why using POST for readonly methods is a problem in the browser. It potentially messes with caching, but it should still function correctly. (Granted, this is probably a poor design design decision, but has nothing to do with correct functionality.) As far as constructing the XML, you should be able to use something like xmlbuilderjs[0]. That said, I completely agree that dealing with REST APIs in the browser is far more practical. [0] https://github.com/oozcitak/xmlbuilder-js/ https://github.com/oozcitak/xmlbuilder-js/
- geon 11y agoHence, "a bit like de-normalizing your database".