Moberg Dale wrote:
> Simon St Laurent comments:
> That's RESTful? For what definition of REST?
>
> Moberg Dale continues in reply:
>
> I will ignore the bait about "definitions". I can only point out that in
> the REST vs. XMLP wars, REST advocates defended the MTTP methods (POST,
> PUT, GET and the like) as indicating ("properly") the RESTful operations
> on the resource indicated in the HTTP command line. In WEBDAV we find
> HTTP extended, for example, by
>
> PROPFIND /file HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.foo.bar
> Content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
> Content-Length: xxxx
>
> That is, new HTTP methods were introduced. The introduction of new HTTP
> methods was discussed in this thread previously. What definition was at
> work for those who introduced those points into the discussion?
I guess I don't find adding verbs to be a plus for an architecture whose
core strength is the deliberate decision to restrict the number of verbs.
REST is kind of HTTP--, not HTTP++.
> Anyway, some sort of WEBDAV lite seems to be what is being envisioned. I
> was just wondering about why reinvention was of interest. I remain
> unclear why you want to reinvent, but I am not discouraging you.
I guess WebDAV looks a lot to me like the recently proposed PATCH. I
don't think adding a huge pile of verbs is the right answer to a problem
that consists primarily of needing to identify nouns more preciesely.
Thanks,
Simon St.Laurent
Retired XML troublemaker
