Hi Jerome,
I am trying to migrate my work to b18. Eventhough I have to unlearn a
lot, it is much nicer to work with the API.
I have a suggestion to make about some o.r.data classes. For Protocol
you provide the method - create, that acts as a factory method. It
would be very convenient to have
Hi Piyush,
Excellent remark. I fully agree and have started renaming existing create
methods and adding new ones to CharacterSet, Encoding, Manguage, MediaType
and Status.
The big advantage of using this static valueOf method instead of a
constructor is that an existing constant can be returned
Hi Vincent,
You are indeed asking a good question, not because you are reaching any
limit of the REST/HTTP style but because you have a case where there is no
simplistic separation between REST and RPC styles.
At the most abstract level, REST doesn't force the use of any protocol
(though HTTP
Think about a Resource as the Object class in Java for example:
anything is an Object, whether you want it or not.
Yes, but objects have state *and* behaviour. All the REST articles I’ve seen so
far conveniently ignore the behaviour part by carefully choosing examples where
the server does not
On 9/16/06, Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On the source account, you'd initiate a transfer with the
arguments being the target account and the amount. The
result on success would be that specific transfer's ID.
Ah, but you're not saying how you 'initiate a transfer'. It's one of
On 9/18/06, Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Yes, but objects have state *and* behaviour. All the REST articles I've seen so
far conveniently ignore the behaviour part by carefully choosing examples where
the server does not need to perform any business logic (e.g. the ATOM protocol,
which
Okay, so this brings up the question of how pure do you want to be?
More exactly, it brings the question of what am I gaining by trying to be 100%
‘pure’?
To be much more pure, you'd do this in stages:
PUT to e.g.: /authinfo/account/123/transfer
and get back a transfer transaction ID. Then,
On 9/18/06, Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Yes, I'm starting to see that (although it seems to me that you have your POSTs
and PUTs backward: shouldn't you use a POST to create the transfer transaction,
and a PUT to send the tx details?).
Ah, yes, this is a major bone of contention
8 matches
Mail list logo
