Hi James, I'm not entirely sure of the origin, but I would guess that
it's sort of a joke that dates back to the days of Usenet.
--steve
On Sep 7, 2006, at 11:32 PM, James Mao wrote:
Hi Steve,
BTW, why the Really Bad Idea is a trademark, any story about that?
Thanks,
James.
Steve Vinoski 写道:
Hi Jervis,
A few comments. First, "few verbs" is not a key idea of REST.
Rather, the REST architectural style promotes a uniform interface
constraint, where all resources support the same exact interface.
The interface ends up being small only because it has to be
general purpose, not because REST requires it to be small. For
HTTP-based systems, the REST uniform interface is the collection
of HTTP verbs, primarily GET and POST.
Second, putting the verb in the URL is a Really Bad Idea™. URIs
identify resources and application states, not operations. The
verb is specified by the protocol. If you're really going to
support REST, you're probably going to implement it using HTTP, in
which case you need a raw HTTP binding if you don't already have
one. But then that in turn begs the question of what such a
binding would offer over a plain ol' servlet. Alternatively, REST
can be implemented using protocols other than HTTP, but I'm not
sure going down that path would buy you anything.
There's much more I could say about what you've written in the
wiki, but let me cut it short and simply ask this: what are the
goals of having CXF "support REST"? Who or what does it benefit?
What kinds of systems do you envision making use of that support?
Considering these questions and their possible answers within the
constraints of the REST architectural style [1] is the only way to
get this truly right, IMO.
--steve
[1] <http://www.markbaker.ca/Talks/2004-xmlself/slide4-0.html>
On Sep 7, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Liu, Jervis wrote:
Hi, I have put the REST support proposal on wiki for your review.
Any comments are welcome.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CXF/REST+Support
Cheers,
Jervis
