Timeline for Why is a small fixed vocabulary seen as an advantage to RESTful services?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2014 at 3:45 | comment | added | Wyatt Barnett | PATCHing resources is pretty cool too. | |
| Jul 20, 2012 at 22:28 | comment | added | Andrea | Get a list of all resources, get a list of all resources with given constraints, update or delete a bunch of resources at the same time, create two different types of resources together atomically (so that both creations fail or succeed), delete all resources satifying a given condition... The list of things that one may want to do is quite long. One can fit them into a REST API, but it is not always natural. It also does not help that GET does not allow a body, so complex filtering conditions become akward. | |
| Mar 25, 2012 at 4:38 | comment | added | Matt Esch | I can facilitate a verb in a RESTful service by creating a resource for doing it. As you say, I don't need additional verbs just more resouces. I just don't see why it's any better to pretend any abstract verb is a noun when what I want to do is really a verb. It seems like verbs are forcibly constrained for no reason, and I am avoiding the problem by creating nouns that perform the required actions when accessed with a small set of verbs. Why would it be any better to do that? There has to be a good reason for it, something I can quantify as a practical example. | |
| Mar 25, 2012 at 3:33 | history | answered | Craig Schwarze | CC BY-SA 3.0 |