On 12/19/06, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Completely agree, but REST being "the web" is a big leap as well.
No it isn't: "REST" is the name put on the technology in question,
unless you're going to equate "the web" with something different than
"HTTP".
> I've done a bunch of Web projects, and know others who have done even
> more. None of us followed the principles of the REST paper.
You never issued a 404 on pages not found? Or a 200 when Ok? You never
bothered to support HTTP GET for your URLs? You never POSTed forms to
your applications?
Of course you did. What you're talking about is the full REST thing,
with PUT and DELETE and the semantics where the URL is a resource;
that's the part you haven't done. And it's true that people haven't
done this, and that this isn't the part of the success of the web. But
the first part *certainly* is.
A question might be; how much of the WS-* stack needs to be successful
before WS-* as a stack is deemed successful? Surely there are
principles and foundations in place that can be highly successful even
if you don't use the full stack?
> But did this REST architectural approach
> enable that, or did we all just get on with using a browser as a thin
> client... I'd say the later.
All browsers are REST clients, some more than others, but REST
nevertheless. Not sure why you're saying otherwise.
Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
- Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
