On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com>wrote:
> That's very nice. Thanks! > :-D > What's not RESTful about it? At first glance I see it uses GET and > POST appropriately, not using GET to create things, using POST to > create/modify things. It doesn't use DELETE, but then that's because > Fossil deletes nothing, right? As for PUT... POST for creating > resources seems to be more popular now. That leaves the non-use of > HTTP status codes, IIUC. But I do think that HTTP status codes should > be used, and it's OK to deliver more application-specific status codes > in the response entity. > It's probably splitting hairs, but by the Wikipedia definition of REST, the JSON API is not REST, and i caught some flak for calling it a REST API early on in the development. Aside from the use of HTTP result codes (which i despise), CGI (which fossil uses even for built-in server mode) does not specify PUT, which REST does. So it's officially "not REST" ;). But yeah, it's REST-enough, IMO. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
