> E.g., if I have a resource that accepts GET, POST, PUT and DELETE,
> the form is probably only going to tickle one of those methods...
> You could put together a set of forms that covered all of the
> ground, of course, but for some tasks, that's pretty clunky.
You're right, a given form will only cover one of the verbs. Of
course, but going this route we're talking about low-rest (or two-
verb rest), so PUT and DELETE are already out of consideration. As
for the other verbs, it would certainly be neccessary to have a
collection of forms to completely document an interface.
Is it clunky? yeah, probably. Just throwing out ideas here, though.
I certainly agree, that this will not cover "high-rest". But, I also already said, that I consider "low-rest" to be service-oriented and "high-rest" resource oriented. Consequently, a service model may look like:
- PUT -> deploy a service
- GET -> describe the service (using the mechanisms brainstormed about here)
- POST -> execute
- DELETE -> undeploy
If you want to include "high-rest" you probably need something completely different. I am just trying to find the equivalent of the standard soa model proclaimed by ws-* people and also, if this is viable or not.
Also note, that this approach takes care of the directory aspect (no uddi required, just a sitemap and/or search engine).
_______________________________________________ microformats-rest mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
