Comments on: Rest, I dont think I get it http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/ Land of the Kearneys Mon, 07 May 2012 21:37:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Alex D http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-268 Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:30:21 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-268 uhm…

HTTP has types. Look at the Accept and Content-type headers. what more would you want?

]]> By: bryankearney http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-136 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:24:17 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-136 It suffers from the same thing.. yes? Just better toolig?

]]> By: jesus m. rodriguez http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-135 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:20:30 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-135 XML-RPC is way easier and in hindsight, I should’ve just went with that :)

]]> By: bryankearney http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-134 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:42:56 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-134 I think the answer is that “it depends”. If you do “stupid” rest (meaning not HATEOAS, closer to XMLRPC) then it is dirt simple to spin up a server in rails/jersey/etc and have it consumed by any number of clients. So.. very simple.. very light weight. Add a true Resource based API (not RPC style) and return links to relationships instead of hte object themselves (true HATEOAS) then it is a bit harder.

SOAP for Java and Python clients is heavy, but pretty easy with the tooling. For ruby, I dont think it is very easy.

So, the answer to your question I think it is that “it depends”

]]> By: dgoodwin http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-133 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:22:02 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-133 So for the contract issue, even if WADL is brushed aside by most, is it sufficient if you want to define such a contract, or is it somehow flawed?

Contract issue aside, does REST then seem simpler than SOAP winds up in practice? I don’t really know one way or another but from what I’m reading many other benefits are mentioned, simpler to integrate with and understand, easier to develop, benefits from being stateless (scalable), and so forth.

]]> By: bryankearney http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-132 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:34:33 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-132 Matěj:

I have seen that..but it seems at a higher level then what I was asking for. Seems wierd there is no contract for the lower level interfaces.

]]> By: bryankearney http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-131 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:31:16 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-131 That is just it.. I dont think having a contract is complicated. Saying it is simple because it lacks functionality is not great. My car is 75% easier, because it is missing a wheel. Zippie.

]]> By: Casey Dahlin http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-130 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:17:58 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-130 Nope. That’s the idea. Stop writing complicated software :)

]]> By: Matěj Cepl http://kearneyville.com/2010/03/01/rest-i-dont-think-i-get-it/#comment-129 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:34:49 +0000 http://kearneyville.com/?p=109#comment-129 http://www.jboss.org/reststar/

]]>