Hi John, [...]
> I think it's helpful to think in terms of fundamental, "base" > resources and composite, "view" resources. An analogy is the > difference between "tables" and "views" in a relational database such > as Oracle. I agree, this is a useful analogy. > As you noted, in your example, it could be modelled where the same URL > is used but the two facets are distinguished by whether the caller > asks for the base (e.g., application/xml) or a human version (e.g., > xhtml). > > For other cases, I think it makes more sense to have the facets more > or less completely disjoint. The human useful, composite views may > make a lot more sense to the user if they have their own naming > hierarchy, etc. and just use the various, lower-level resources as > services, if you will, that are managed separately. I agree and would add that those lower-level resources (or core resources) could be modelled and exposed as either: - persistent POJOs (db4o, EJB3, etc.) - RESTful resources (via a separate Restlet application for example) In the second case, you could even think about a two-layer approach, where on Web Component would remotely access to an internal Core/Business Component. This way, your Core Component could be shared between several 'view' applications/components. Best regards, Jerome
