The main win for me using rest (get requests) as opposed to e.g. soap (post requests), is cacheability.
Fronting such a service with a varnish cache is about as easy as it gets. Even in the face of rapidly changing data, varnish works perfectly well with cache times down to 1/2 a second. This may not seem very useful at first, but it can make a significant difference when scaling up to thousands or millions of hits per hour. If latency is even more critical than that, or if caching doesn't make sense because your clients all have distinct results, then I'm a big fan of json over chunked/streaming http - at least until Web sockets become a great deal more prevalent. On Feb 18, 2012 8:50 AM, "Mark Derricutt" <[email protected]> wrote: > Out of actual, honest to goodness curiosity - why are "restful URLs" a > good, desired thing? > > That all depends on the type of webframework, or the type of application > your writing. For "web sites" I can see restful URLs that are -stateless- > would be useful. "restful URLs" that also use fragments are client side > only so don't really relate to server frameworks..... > > > -- > "Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven Wilson, > Porcupine Tree > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:39 AM, phil swenson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 1) restful URLs >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
