couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antony Blakey <antony.bla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fail on a simple case on replication
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:26:46 GMT

On 24/02/2009, at 9:29 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:

> CouchDB documents are limited to JSON (application/json) as the
> content, that doesn't make the API less RESTful. If that's not the
> right answer, I don't understand what you mean.

application/json doesn't define the semantics of the payload e.g. how  
to interact with the resource. To do that it would have to be  
application/json+couchdoc et al.

>> and it uses externally defined URL structures to effect operations.
>
> Can you elaborate on that?

To be RESTful, the means of constructing URLs needs to be defined by  
the media type specification. For example, having ?rev= is a rule that  
is external to both the media type and the document.

A RESTful API would have a single entry point, with every other URL  
and service constructed/discovered by processing the content, applying  
the rules of the media type to the content to construct new URLS, just  
like HTML. The HTML web doesn't have a manual describing how to effect  
operations by constructing certain URLs beyond the interpretation of  
the content.

> Why then have folks like Sam Ruby* or Tim Bray not objected yet?
> Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just wondering if you are  
> interpreting
> "the spec" a little too strict?

The term is defined by Roy Fielding's thesis, and he has objected to  
the misuse of the term: http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypertext-driven

. And the next post: http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/specialization  
is also good.

>> My argument in this context is pointless. I know it's not going to  
>> change.
>
> How about not trying to subtly create "them-and-us" situation? It  
> seems
> strange given that you clarified a statement about "the PMC" earlier  
> in
> this thread to avoid misinterpretation (thanks). Also, you never  
> brought
> this up, so how do you know it is not going to change?

I have brought this up before on couchdb-user@incubator.apache.org -  
15 November 2008, Subject: RESTful? (was: Re: Document Updates).  
Apache archives don't cover that time on that list.

Hence, my comment, - let's not fire up this argument. I meant that I  
wasn't going to waste m/l bandwidth rehashing an argument that has  
already been done and dusted in this context.

Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

The project was so plagued by politics and ego that when the engineers  
requested technical oversight, our manager hired a psychologist instead.
  -- Ron Avitzur


Mime
View raw message