cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Mao <>
Subject Re: REST support proposal for review
Date Fri, 08 Sep 2006 03:32:55 GMT
Hi Steve,

BTW, why the Really Bad Idea is a trademark, any story about that?


Steve Vinoski 写道:
> Hi Jervis,
> A few comments. First, "few verbs" is not a key idea of REST. Rather, 
> the REST architectural style promotes a uniform interface constraint, 
> where all resources support the same exact interface. The interface 
> ends up being small only because it has to be general purpose, not 
> because REST requires it to be small. For HTTP-based systems, the REST 
> uniform interface is the collection of HTTP verbs, primarily GET and 
> Second, putting the verb in the URL is a Really Bad Idea™. URIs 
> identify resources and application states, not operations. The verb is 
> specified by the protocol. If you're really going to support REST, 
> you're probably going to implement it using HTTP, in which case you 
> need a raw HTTP binding if you don't already have one. But then that 
> in turn begs the question of what such a binding would offer over a 
> plain ol' servlet. Alternatively, REST can be implemented using 
> protocols other than HTTP, but I'm not sure going down that path would 
> buy you anything.
> There's much more I could say about what you've written in the wiki, 
> but let me cut it short and simply ask this: what are the goals of 
> having CXF "support REST"? Who or what does it benefit? What kinds of 
> systems do you envision making use of that support? Considering these 
> questions and their possible answers within the constraints of the 
> REST architectural style [1] is the only way to get this truly right, 
> IMO.
> --steve
> [1] <>
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Liu, Jervis wrote:
>> Hi, I have put the REST support proposal on wiki for your review. Any 
>> comments are welcome.
>> Cheers,
>> Jervis

View raw message