Not sure this has been posted to this list yet. Steve Vinoski as usual does a great job in his IEEE column, in this case writing up the topic of RESTful Web services development principles
http://steve.vinoski.net/pdf/IEEE-RESTful_Web_Services_Development_Checklist.pdf More on his blog http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/11/01/restful-web-services-development-checklist/ Eric ________________________________ From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, November 7, 2008 10:33:29 AM Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Fielding on REST Constraints [oops, I thought I sent this earlier. apologies] On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@ gmail.com> wrote: > I completely agree based on previous messages. But a couple of times > (here and the "protocol" one) you've pushed the idea of HTTP adoption > as being indicative of REST adoption. The two things are different. > As was said before WS-* uses HTTP and it isn't REST. > > Your references are about purely websites, this has NOTHING to do with > proving your statement on REST adoption being in the "millions". I never said REST adoption was in the millions though. What I did say was that millions of developers are *unknowingly* working within many (not all) of the constraints of REST when developing Web apps. Hypermedia-as- the-engine- of-application- state is, in fact, one of those. >> None of what you describe there is necessary for inter-site >> integration using the Web. All that's required is a link, and that's >> what you've got. Take a bow already, and stop being so modest. 8-) > > This only works if you define integration as "linking two things" > rather than having anything that is actually useful for computers to > use for integration. Link traversal isn't integration in the same > way as FK traversal isn't integration in a database. Your Web site and InfoQ's web site have been integrated in such a way that a user can seamlessly traverse from the former to the latter, and from there to other sites as yet undeveloped. I know it doesn't seem like rocket science, but that's only because we take it for granted after living with the Web now for well over a decade. If this chat were happening back in 1991, that feature *would* sound like rocket science. > Just a quick question: Are you saying that HTTP and the href tag is > sufficent for a site to claim it is doing REST style integration? > This way it would be the case that sites that just use POST for > everything would be fully REST compliant. No. Mark.
