On 28/11/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/28/06, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not from the perspective of the consumer, when I see a URI that > > includes something like "drawGraph?xData=fred&yData=pointless" then > > I'm calling drawGraph with those parameters. > > And if the publisher of the *same* functionality used this instead; > > http://example.org/kdjfalkjdfnawkflaudfnakjsdnfalufh > > then what would the operation be there?
Incomprehensible to any rational person? > > > I don't care whether its "GET" or whatever, its drawGraph that I am > > calling. In the same way as when I call www.google.com/analytics I am > > calling analytics not "GET". This is one of the things I like about > > REST in that it explicitly encodes the method within the URI making it > > simpler to read directly in the code (as opposed to in tools as with > > WS, which I also like), at no stage ever when I'm using REST things am > > I thinking "GET", I'm thinking about what the URI describes. > > No Steve, REST doesn't encode the method within the URI. With all due > respect, that statement shows me that you don't yet understand it. Quite clearly, because I thought that the major idea was that the URI was in itself documentation of the action. Okay so drawGraph should possibly be just "Graph" and viewing Graph as a resource, but what is wrong from a REST perspective with a resource of http://somewhere.com/maths/graph?x=mypoints&y=mypoints ? GET will be idempotent and is considering graph to be a complex resource. If you are saying that REST isn't that simple then I'm suprised. I was sure that choosing the right URI name was a key part of REST. Yup not getting it.... > > REST is an architectural style. It has constraints that you have to > follow in order to realize its benefits. One of these constraints is > that operations be uniform. On the Web, that means in effect, that > the operation has to be an HTTP operation (or an extension therefore, > e.g. WebDAV). So you are saying that it is _bad_ practice in REST to have sensibly named URIs? I'm really missing which bit of REST I've violated by having a sensibly named URI, and which bit of the "web" doesn't use URIs to split different areas of functionality (ala the google example). If REST doesn't consider www.google.com/analytics differently to http://www.google.com/trends then I've definately missed something around the lack of importance of URI design in REST. Steve > > Mark. >
