Comments on: REST: I don’t quite get it http://info-architects.net/2007/08/10/rest-i-dont-quite-get-it/ Toby Hede's Blog on Ruby, Rails, Facebook Development, User Experience and Stuff Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:31:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Toby Hede http://info-architects.net/2007/08/10/rest-i-dont-quite-get-it/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Toby Hede Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:48:45 +0000 http://info-architects.net/2007/08/10/rest-i-dont-quite-get-it/#comment-27 I understand the theory (I've actually read Fielding's work) and I am using, it just feels that I am bending my application in some ways to get it working right. And hey, I've lived through several of these movements. A few years ago everything was in SOAP and RPC was the future. That said, I think REST is much better architecturally ... just be awesome if we didn't have to resort to hacks. I understand the theory (I’ve actually read Fielding’s work) and I am using, it just feels that I am bending my application in some ways to get it working right.

And hey, I’ve lived through several of these movements. A few years ago everything was in SOAP and RPC was the future.

That said, I think REST is much better architecturally … just be awesome if we didn’t have to resort to hacks.

]]> By: craigmcc http://info-architects.net/2007/08/10/rest-i-dont-quite-get-it/comment-page-1/#comment-28 craigmcc Mon, 13 Aug 2007 05:58:42 +0000 http://info-architects.net/2007/08/10/rest-i-dont-quite-get-it/#comment-28 It is too bad that you are confusing implementation details (current browers do not support PUT and DELETE, so *any* RESTful framework that wants to support REST have to do yucky things under the covers. The most important concept you need to understand in order to "get" REST (heh :-) is the idea that URIs should be nouns, not verbs. Next most important: * GET must be idempotent ... no side effects from issuing the same GET more than once * GET requests with appropriate headers can leverage the fact that the WWW knows how to cache things for the right amount of time. * RESTful URIs are bookmarkable -- the typical framework based URI is not. * Even though a browser doesn't know natively how to do PUT and DELETE, your application can certainly do that via appropriate XMLHttpRequest calls. * And, by the way, Flash/Flex/JavaFX/whatever clients can use your same back end with no problems if you provide RESTful APIs for your services, instead of just focusing on HTML representations for humans sitting behind a browser. Rails makes it particularly easy to accomodate this use case (google for "respond_to") but it is by no means specific to this particular framework. It is too bad that you are confusing implementation details (current browers do not support PUT and DELETE, so *any* RESTful framework that wants to support REST have to do yucky things under the covers.

The most important concept you need to understand in order to “get” REST (heh :-) is the idea that URIs should be nouns, not verbs. Next most important:

* GET must be idempotent … no side effects from issuing the same GET
more than once

* GET requests with appropriate headers can leverage the fact that
the WWW knows how to cache things for the right amount of time.

* RESTful URIs are bookmarkable — the typical framework based URI is not.

* Even though a browser doesn’t know natively how to do PUT and DELETE,
your application can certainly do that via appropriate XMLHttpRequest calls.

* And, by the way, Flash/Flex/JavaFX/whatever clients can use your same
back end with no problems if you provide RESTful APIs for your services,
instead of just focusing on HTML representations for humans sitting
behind a browser. Rails makes it particularly easy to accomodate this
use case (google for “respond_to”) but it is by no means specific to
this particular framework.

]]>