Javalobby - Comments for "REST vs REST" Comments for "REST vs REST" en Here are the pure REST <!--paging_filter--><blockquote> Here are the pure REST problems:<ul><li>The way we think of web services is not resource based.</li></ul></blockquote><br /> <p>Well, there's your fundamental problem. </p><p>Let me rephrase that for you. </p><p>&quot;Since I don't get REST, it's square peg doesn't find in the round hole of my world view.&quot; </p><p>Amazing that. </p><p>REST is like SOA. It's an idiom. A design philosophy. Like Object Oriented. Just like you don't need SOAP Web Services to do a SOA architecture, you don't need HTTP to have a REST based design. Perhaps you'd like to access you database through db://mysqlhost:1234/customers/123. </p><p>What protocol is that? Why it's the db protocol. Says so in the URI. What's the db protocol? It's obviously an internal protocol. We don't even know what the format is. We DO know, however, that we can access that resource using some limited set of verbs to manipulate the resource. Those verbs are also application specific. Most likely, they'll be common verbs (like GET, PUT, DELETE), why break tradition. But they don't have to be. There's no rule telling you what the verbs are. </p><p>RESTful design JUST HAPPENS to work well with the HTTP protocol, but it's hardly a requirement. Thus the confusion. </p><p>You may as well be complaining that JMS is a lousy at RPC. Of course it is! It's an asynchronous messaging framework, completely different architecture. </p><p>What you call &quot;RESTful&quot; I call &quot;ad hoc RPC over HTTP&quot;. There's nothing &quot;REST&quot; about it. </p> Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:05:49 -0400 whartung comment 4928 at