[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'm not sure that's true. Ultimately, all you can model is the interaction
between client and server. In this case, that means URIs and
Representations. The Resource seems to me just a convenience for the server
implementer, since the client can't know any more about than what it knows
of URIs and Representations. I have wondered at times if the use of
Resource in REST discussions has been more a tool to illustrate the
architecutral style than an actual concrete part of the equation...
---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@seairth.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
To: "Joe English" <jenglish@flightlab.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] many-to-many
> >If we dispose of the inconvenient fiction
> >of a "Resource", most of the metaphysical hooey
> >surrounding URIs goes away.
>
> I'd like to watch you try, if only so I could watch the heads of
> Fielding and the rest of the REST camp explode.
> /r$
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
|
