On Wednesday, December 06, 2006, at 06:40PM, "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 06/12/06, Stefan Tilkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>
>Either REST says that URIs need to be sensible and meaningful names or >its okay to have rubbish and there is another bit that gives meaning. Steve, why don't you take a look what REST says about resource identifiers and then we discuss *that*? Jan >The fact that someone can do something badly (e.g. have a bad variable >or method name) doesn't mean that this should be the standard. > >So should REST URIs have meaning or are they opaque? > > >> >> Stefan >> -- >> Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ >> >> On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Steve Jones wrote: >> >> > On 05/12/06, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Steve Jones wrote: >> > > >> > > > This to me is a cop-out, either URIs should be meaningful in >> > REST or >> > > > not, having a half-way house of "kinda" doesn't help anyone or >> > add any >> > > > sort of clarity and formalism. >> > > >> > > Dunno, but I think it has been said before in this thread that >> > from a >> > > REST POV, URIs are simply opaque identifiers. >> > >> > So in other words it is _important_ for REST that the URI be >> > meaningless? (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/opaque?view=uk) >> > >> > opaque: difficult or impossible to understand >> > >> > So surely this means that the examples I used with sensible names that >> > mean something are therefore _not_ REST as they are easy to >> > understand. >> > >> > Given therefore that REST URIs are meant to be unintelligable (which I >> > really don't understand as to why that is a good thing) how do you >> > communicate to consumers what URIs to use? What is the way of >> > documenting URIs to consumers? >> > >> > > >> > > Jan >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >
