On 13/12/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.

But there must be a way of turning REST into implementation, like the
way when people talk about WS-* and technology I call it Service
Oriented Development (SOD IT).  What ever the ROD approach is it
should have things such as naming conventions.


>
>  > 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.

And here is the challenge I have, for me a decent RESTful system
should have decent URI names.  Given the importance placed on URIs in
the REST paper and the importance of names in general to people I
think its an over-sight.  I'd say in a SOA the names of services are
100% an architectural element as they represent a key link between the
business and the system, and I'd argue in REST that resource names are
again a key link, and given that the URI is the manifestation of that
resource (i.e. it is the "real" name of the resource) then the two
should match.


>
>  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'.
>                    

Reply via email to