Four years later, and we still don’t know the architectural constraints of Web services/SOA 8-(
“Is this science? Truth? No, it’s the voice of goons.” +1
Nice. But damn, how hard is it to get Roy’s name right? This at least the third or fourth time I’ve seen “Ray Fielding”.
According to Steve Jones, REST is a career limiting move;
But as with any technical discuss there is another thing that should drive you when you look to your decisions. This is whether you want to get fired for a decision when something goes wrong, and whether you want your skills to be relevant in 3 years time.
That would be funny if it weren’t so sad; completely accurate, yet aimed entirely in the wrong direction 8-(
On that page, he asks;
I’d like to hear more from Mark about what he sees as problematic about the current notion of binding. Although the spec seems unusual, the end result does seem to respect WebArch
It does respect Web architecture, but only because it’s read-only. As soon as you need to add mutation support, or indeed any other operation on the same resource, the process fails and what results is not Web-friendly. This is because “operation on the same resource” doesn’t work if the operation is part of the resource name; if the operation changes, the name changes, and therefore the resource-identified changes.
Making something Web-friendly means mapping your data and services into a set of inter-linked resources. Application-specific APIs works directly against that.
And FWIW, from a REST POV the constraint that’s being disregarded in these scenarios is commonly resource identification.