Mark Baker wrote: > > > On 7/24/07, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:gergg%40cox.net>> wrote: > > Mark Baker wrote: > > > That depends what you mean. If you mean that interactions via other > > > protocols can be presented through a RESTful abstraction (e.g. > > > clicking on an ftp URI in a Web page), I'd agree. But if you mean > > > that the architecture of the system behind that abstraction is RESTful > > > (i.e. the resulting FTP session), I'd disagree. In fact, I can't > > > think of another protocol which, in general use, yields RESTful > > > systems. Did you have any in mind? > > > > MODBUS is one example which has been around for quite some time. > > It's not RESTful. It doesn't even follow the uniform interface > constraint, because it includes separate functions for "read coil > status", "read input status", etc.. If it were RESTful then there > would be one single "read" function, and the address would be used to > distinguish between coils, inputs, registers, etc..
The number of functions is limited based on the address range you are refering to. I'm not sure how you can summarily conclude that the HTTP definition of GET is somehow the only valid definition of such a RESTful operation. Gregg Wonderly
