> It also seems bizarre to me to implement the interface that way. Basically > its like making a web page with a single text area named "content" and then > requiring formatting within that one field. Why not have the REST interface > have discrete fields? Coding to it would be certainly be cleaner. Maybe > for /REST/2.0/ ?
When it was implemented in 2002(?) or so, REST best practices were much
less clear. And the initial design goal involved being able to implement
a commandline client as a shell script with wget and a text editor.
RFC822-encoded forms were a very straight forward way to get from A to
B.
If I were doing it today[1], I'd do it differently.
-Jesse
[1] And indeed, RT4 is based on Jifty and serves up both the legacy /REST/1.0
interface and Jifty's much more modern REST interface:
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/SARTAK/Jifty-0.80408/lib/Jifty/Plugin/REST/Dispatcher.pm
pgpbsMQ0W5ByY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
