Mar 10 2005
REST
I keep hearing, and reading, the phrase “REST” in relation to web services. I originally thought it was a new standard, so sort of ignored it, as I’m not big into the web services game. It came up again at the chiPy sprint, so this afternoon I did some Googling, and found Building Web Services the REST Way. I’m not sure if this is the “definitive” REST definition or not, but it was pretty enlightening. It makes me especially happy that it’s not another standard, but an architectural theory. I’m surrounded by lots of architecural theories, but it feels like there aren’t many that pertain to web application design, at least that I’ve been exposed to. I’ve always silently been bugged by ?id=someid, but use it because it’s easier. I’m glad that it’s a specific design consideration in the REST way of thinking, it’s good that some sense of asthetics are taken into consideration. Why? I don’t know, it just feels right to want your fancy web app to be pleasing (RESTful?).
Edited to add:
I guess this dissertation is the “definitive” definition.
One more Edit:
I just read Jon Udell’s essay on The Beauty of Rest, I particularly liked the following:
I do see hopeful signs. When I showed one librarian why her OPAC system wouldn’t cooperate with LibraryLookup, she concluded that her vendor had used “the wrong kind of software.” And I agreed. She has never read Roy Fielding’s thesis and never will, but she groks the REST principles intuitively. What she was saying, thogh she lacked the terminology to describe it, is that her OPAC is broken because it’s not RESTful. And if she has any say in the matter, the next OPAC her library buys will be.
I like theories that combine the word “intuitive” with “technology.” It reminds me that I never pointed to Joel on Software’s online book on UI design, mostly because it seems pretty well pointed to. So, here’s one more point.
