| Article: |
The REST of the Web | |
| Subject: | this is not REST | |
| Date: | 2005-04-28 16:44:58 | |
| From: | jrbriggs | |
|
Response to: this is not REST
|
||
|
Using XmlHttpRequest means using javascript (& if you're supporting a wide variety of browsers, also probably means browser detection, etc). I'm trying to support the lowest common denominator which means that due to various browser constraints I'm limiting what I can use -- in addition I to keep things as simple as possible
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.
-
this is not REST
2005-04-29 05:56:13 nferrier [View]
-
this is not REST
2005-04-29 20:32:32 jrbriggs [View]
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, if you think that using javascript with sarissa is simpler than a standard html form. I don't
see the use of a POSTed parameter, to subvert the http method at the server side, polluting the code as much as you seem to -- at least it's not setting an action directly within a URI (as Prescod notes in his Common Rest Mistakes).
Do you have a reference discussing why client side complication is preferred for REST applications, because I've never come across anything with that recommendation. I'd certainly be interested in reading it. -
this is not REST
2005-04-30 14:27:51 nferrier [View]
Roy Fielding's paper on architecture and REST:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm



simple where? you're servlet now has a facade to allow you to pretend that it is a RESTfull interface. It isn't a RESTfull interface, it is REST + some pollution.
sarissa (which I mentioned in my first note) is cross browser support for XmlHttpRequest so you don't need browser detection. Ok, you'd still be excluding lynx|links but were you including those anyway?
Complicating the client side a little is preferred in REST, the view being that life is complicated enough on the server already.
And you're article is titled "the REST of the web".