Should a DL describe "interaction patters"?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Should a DL describe "interaction patters"?

Jan Algermissen

Hi Mark,

while going through the archives I cam across a posting by Paul  
Downey that IMHO contains a spot-on question regarding what might go  
into a RESTful description language. Unfortunately, you never seemed  
to provide your opinion. Here is the critical part; It would be great  
if you could post your opinion.

Paul asked[1] Mark:

<quote>
Would you be happy if a description language didn't use
the word 'operation' but, say 'pattern' or 'task' and gave those
patterns non-symbolic names, e.g. 'add a link' rather
than 'addLink'?

Or are you heading towards having nothing more than a list of the
resources available, and an assumption that all the HTTP verbs
can be applied to each resource? If so, that's less than the
current simple HTTP API publishers [delicious, flickr,..] already  
provide in their
English descriptions.
</quote>

IMHO, REST mandates the "less than the simple HTTP API publishers  
already provide" because it introduces sort of a hidden contract and  
breaks HTTPs API uniformity.

Jan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-http-desc/2005Jun/ 
0072.html