cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Vinoski <>
Subject Re: REST support proposal for review
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:55:56 GMT
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 POST.

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,  


[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