On 18/12/06, Alexander Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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".
REST is a name put on a software implementation style that sits on HTTP. It is not the same as saying that all web-sites obey the REST paper. > > > 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? Yup, did all that... > > 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. So what you are saying is that people have done REST but without resources... you do see the issue with that statement surely? I used HTTP, I used parts of the HTTP spec (though far from all) and used that to ship HTML to browsers. I know its comforting to claim that this is REST but in reality it isn't, it is building a thin client server->human publishing system. This is vastly different to a server->server system. > > 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? Agreed, but I wouldn't claim I was using WS-Security when I wasn't or that I'd used WS-* when all I had done is put the word "SOAP" in a messages or used XML-RPC. > > > 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. 1) Did Microsoft, Netscape, NCSA, Mozilla and Opera read and obey the REST architectural guidelines before implementing their browsers 2) Is the goal of browser based systems computer->human or computer->computer That is why. To me it looks like a desperate attempt to get a successful reference for REST by using systems that were never built based on the REST paper. Its like me writing a paper on how it would be a great idea to have planes talk to each other in the sky via some sort of Radar beacon so they would know where they were even when beyond land based radar coverage. And then claiming TCAS as my "reference". I built Web Sites well before I knew of the REST paper, they went live and they worked and I can 100% say I didn't think of it in the terms outlined in the REST paper. > > Alex > -- > "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know." > - Frank Herbert > __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________ >
