> On Dec 18, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org> wrote: > > On 18/12/2015 6:28pm, Andrus Adamchik wrote: >> I was thinking about this design some more.. This isolation between wire >> protocol and serialization layer sounds great at some level, but has >> significant drawbacks too. It would prevent us from building a truly RESTful >> service, as serializer can't manipulate URL, headers or access media type >> information. Treating the underlying HTTP as blackbox was the mistake SOAP >> made back in the day, which caused its undoing. So I am not sure we want to >> go this route. > > > Except that we are building a ROP service, not a restful service. ROP > requires the use of a Cayenne QueryMessage object to describe the resources > we want to fetch, where REST would describe that as a URL path. That's not > what I'm trying to accomplish here since it gives us minimal benefit when the > client isn't a web browser. > > Cayenne ROP currently has just two method calls. One to log in and create a > session, and one for everything else. All the data (which objects we are > getting, updating, etc) are within the serialised data stream itself and not > in the URL or headers. > > The only reason I'm wanting to keep http at all is because some nice stuff > has been already built on it for us. gzip, keep-alive and SSL are all pretty > trivial over HTTP. Other than those, we could just as easily be opening a raw > TCP socket and pushing the data over that.
If we are focused narrowly on fixing ROP, then I agree. This is fine and is probably a good low-hanging fruit for us to take care of. If we want to make something better and more widely usable out of it, then my concerns come into play. As I personally haven't committed to doing anything in this area yet, I don't have any objections to improving ROP per approach discussed above either. Andrus
