paul

62 ms·

661.
by paul 18y ago
I think perhaps we're talking about a different aspect of REST. What I find annoying is people objecting to "POST /actions/subscribe" (with the params in the post body) because it's "non-RESTful" -- the url is a verb and REST demands a noun
662.
by paul 18y ago
Right, that means that you are doing your own cache invalidation (by changing the etag or last modified time), not relying on some magic proxy which watches for PUT and DELETE. That also means that you can use normal HTTP and ignore this RE
663.
by paul 18y ago
Well, I guess it depends how you define "FIT". It's possible to shoehorn just about any service into just about any model, but that doesn't make it a good idea. For example, sending email by doing a PUT to some newly created URL is silly. T
664.
by paul 18y ago
If your application is a simple key/value store, then scaling won't be a problem. If it's something more complex, then such simplistic caching models won't work. For example, the FriendFeed api includes a method that fetches multiple feeds
665.
by paul 18y ago
He asked for an example of a web service that doesn't follow the RESTful model. I replied to his request. My point is that almost no web service is truly "RESTful".
666.
by paul 18y ago
Nearly all of them? Run your packet sniffer on Gmail for example -- I guarantee that send isn't implemented with a PUT to noun url!
667.
by paul 18y ago
Yeah, the comments are crazy and seem to completely miss the point. HTTP is wonderful, but I've gotten along just fine without ever using PUT or DELETE or other bits of REST dogma, as has the rest of web. Sometimes my urls are actually verb
668.
by paul 18y ago
Exactly right. The dogma that develops around these kinds of things is so weird. Update: Here is a good example of silly REST dogma: http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2008/06/10/TwoCardinalSins... (since a lot of people don't seem to unde
669.
by paul 18y ago
Yes, I apparently those that can, do, and those that can not, talk trash.
670.
by paul 18y ago
This guy is so annoying. You might think that the non-success of his own startup ( http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/19/pressflip-is-a-belly-fl... ) would make him slightly more humble, but apparently not.
671.
by paul 18y ago
By what metric was it a huge success in 1999? They had a good product, but most people had never heard of the company. I remember having to explain that it was "kind of like Yahoo, but with good search and none of the other features", and t
672.
by paul 18y ago
By what year was Google a "huge success"? Do you realize that they started working on it in 1996? (the company wasn't formed until late 98)
673.
by paul 18y ago
Release early and release often. They did the opposite.
674.
by paul 18y ago
I've been trying to figure this out as well. Maybe people like this kind of thing because they WANT it to be true. The notion that they COULD be doing something better is threatening in a way. They want someone to tell them that their other
675.
by paul 18y ago
Yes, realistically neither subscription nor advertisement is likely to bring in a lot of money. My guess is that they want to do things the "37 signals" way, and that means acting as though advertising isn't "realistic".
676.
by paul 18y ago
No, his point is that it's more complex than that because the money flows in and out of the fund slowly.
677.
by paul 18y ago
Very misleading. Click tracking is a very useful quality signal for search engines. Also, to my knowledge, Google doesn't sell any data -- they're very paranoid about that kind of thing (if you don't believe me, try buying data from them) T
678.
by paul 18y ago
I'm in favor of free speech as a legal concept, but that doesn't mean that I want to listen to and promote everything. There is some content that will actually make you dumber. Most tv news is in this category, actually. I'll try to come up
679.
by paul 18y ago
I'd rather see LOLCATs. I haven't quite figured out how to articulate what's wrong with this kind of thing, but it's somewhat similar to Fox news -- they're not simply useless, they're corrosive. I'm still trying to think of a better explan
680.
by paul 18y ago
It's sad to see this trollish content rising to the top of news.yc.
681.
by paul 18y ago
I think it had a random collection of links because Knol is tiny and that's all they have. I'm sure it will change as they grow.
682.
by paul 18y ago
Google: #2 http://www.google.com/search?q=Pediatric+Sports+Injuries Yahoo: #1 http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGklD1pY5I0hcByd1XNyoA... I didn't bother searching msn. I'm sure the results vary from query to query, as they do for a
683.
by paul 18y ago
PageRank is computed based on the links in the page graph, not domains. Knol was all over the news, so it has links from a variety of other high-pr sites. It also ranks high in Yahoo search -- do you believe that they are in on the conspira
684.
by paul 18y ago
What is there for me to deny?
685.
by paul 18y ago
This is so stupid. Pagerank is based on links, Knol has a lot of links, therefore it has good pagerank. Why is that evil? Update: At the moment this comment is moderated -2, and the factually incorrect reply is +4. Nice.
686.
by paul 18y ago
Just because a company is sold before it's profitable doesn't mean that it couldn't ever earn money, or that it doesn't deliver value to the buyer. It doesn't personally interest me, but there is nothing wrong with building a company whose
687.
by paul 18y ago
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
688.
by paul 18y ago
Yes it was. Ask Jeeves was a stupid "natural language" thing back then -- basically a giant, hand edited, FAQ.
689.
by paul 18y ago
It sounds as though they are working on it. I'd buy one.
690.
by paul 18y ago
Why does there have to be only one "right" way to do things?

More ›