[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I see what you're getting at ... I don't know if REST would say anything
one
> way or the other about this, after all it is just HTTP best practice not
> anything you can't do today.
You're right of course. But there does seem to be a push towards the idea
that the entities being passed around should be XML documents - which is
already out of HTTP's scope - yes? I was just wondering aloud what would be
the effect of enhancing that notion to using relation sets instead of just
trees. Might it be possible, for example, to come up with generic URI based
addressing / querying schemes for interacting with HTTP hosted relational
databases, e.g. by combining the original URI with keys and attribute
names/value pairs from relations received from previous GETs.
> Well, I've learned the hard way that if you ask Fabian Pascal this
question,
> he will rudely question your intelligence, education, experience,
> ... parentage, species <grin> ... but not offer a compelling answer.
<GG> I've noticed that too! Although he often hints that it's all going to
change soon - just watch this (err.. that) space!
> For what it is worth, there is supposedly a "stealth"
> company with a patent on a truly innovative database technology that
> will do all this with the assistance/blessing of Codd and Date. The
> only trace of them I've found on the internet is this help wanted ad:
> http://www.cppsig.org/guestbook/ [search for "Codd" within the page],
> and US Patent 6,009,432
Well, that would be a turn up for the books - if it ended up that no one
else was _allowed_ to implement 3M type stuff due to patent restrictions.
By simply reading the synopsis it _sounds_ like it is addressing
implementation issues only - not the logical "data model" that the system
presents. But, iac, what a godforsaken hole software patents are....
<All-property-is-theft,-and-Intellectual-Property-is-theft-directly-from-God
!>'ly yrs,
gary
|
