Well, I somewhat agree... and I''m actually using the REST stuff for a
valid business need in my current app.
But I will throw in here that:
- I still find map.resources hella confusing... map.connect was
wonderfully obvious, simple, and powerful (though obviously one can
still use it... I do)
- Not every interaction one will do with a server can be expressed as a
noun. Ok, it probably can, but it will sometimes wind up being horribly
forced... in a year you''ll look back and say "wtf was I
thinking!?!"
- The "resource" that the inventors of http envsioned was a
*document*... not a "user" or a "post" or any of that. The
document is
the result of sending a request -- identified by a uri -- to a server,
and the document, the same "resource" could be in a number of
different
formats... xml being one of them.
- Most importantly, it seems like there are a lot of people doing
backflips to figure out "all this REST stuff" and fit it into their
web
app.... even when they have no immediate use for REST... or probably
ever will. I firmly believe that REST capabilities should only be added
when there is a need, not to be "cool and cutting edge".
b
PS: So when will acts_as_devils_advocate be available as a plugin? :-)
Jeff Pritchard wrote:> First let me say that I mean no disrespect with these comments.
It''s a
> bona fide effort to better understand the significance of something that
> the core Rails team is clearly very interested in and proud of.
>
> So with that disclaimer out of the way, I say to you, what''s the
big
> deal about REST? I''ve seen the keynote from DHH, and was left
more with
> a pleasant feeling of "well, that''s nice", rather than
having been
> infected by his obvious excitement with these ideas.
>
> Ok, sure, the (slightly forced) correlation between CRUD and the four
> methods of http is, shall we say, elegant, or at least cute.
>
> Ok, maybe it cleans up Routes.rb just a tiny bit.
>
> On those (for me so far, very rare) occasions where a decent looking
> screen implementation of an app is simple enough to provide a pristine
> set of "nothing but authorization" CRU and D methods, maybe you
save
> about 12 lines of code needed to provide a separate set of such
> controller methods for a web service implementation...
>
> ...and leading off of that, so cool, they''ve provided us with a
new
> light weight alternative for web services. That''s nice.
I''ll probably
> use that, but it was pretty far down on my wish list...
>
> So, acts_as_devils_advocate asks, was I busy yawning during the
> important part? :)
>
> thanks,
> jp
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---