[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
>
>...
>
> The REST *architecture* has merits for some classes of problem, no
> doubt about it. I don't think anyone would claim that it is applicable
> to *all* classes of problem. REST over HTTP is equally usable for some
> subset of the problem domain to which REST is applicable, and equally,
> I don't think anyone would claim that it is applicable to *all* REST
> problems.
My position is that HTTP is like XML. They aren't good for all problems.
Both of them, in particular, could have performance issues in certain
circumstances. They aren't ideal for all problems. In fact, they aren't
ideal for ANY problems because a custom-designed protocol or markup
language will always be more compact and convenient than a generalized
one.
On the other hand, both XML and HTTP are generalized enough that they
cover a vast tract of the application space. XML covers all labelled
trees. HTTP covers all manipulation (GETting, PUTting and extending) of
named resources. Just as you think that HTTP is trivial (or
overcomplicated) here, they think XML is trivial (or overcomplicated) in
the protocols mailing lists. That's okay with me. Time will tell. I
think they are wasting their time when they try to reinvent XML (as they
constantly do). I think people are wasting their time here when they try
to reinvent HTTP. But it's your time. You and Simon can design your
0-verb XML language and we'll compare and contrast.
Paul Prescod
|
