Steve Jones wrote: > > > On 12/12/06, Gordon Sim wrote: > > > > > > Steve Jones wrote: > > > Personally I think REST should mandate sensible names with resource > > > IDs being GUIDs that makes perfect sense to me and would clear up all > > > the confusion. > > > > I disagree. Naming conventions and architectural constraints are > > separate concerns. > > So what is the implementation of REST called?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. As I understand it REST is an architectural style i.e. a named set of architectural constraints. A system may or may not conform to those constraints. > I'm really struggling > to understand why REST people dislike having decent names for URIs. The REST people on this list seem to me to have shown no 'dislike' for 'decent names', they have just pointed out that isn't a characteristic of a RESTful system. My comment above (and I should point out if it is not already obvious that I am by no means a REST expert) was merely that in my opinion naming conventions are a separate and orthogonal concern to architectural constraints. I did not at any point argue against using 'decent names'.
