[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think that it would be interesting to have a "rest resource" binding > to sit alongside the rest rpc binding. The intention would be to > provide a convenient template against which to construct a service > which is able to provide an implementation for the HTTP style Create > (POST), Retrieve (GET), Update (PUT), Delete (DELETE) style verbs. The > resource identification would rely on normal URL path info and > parameter information. > > I'm not convinced that the terms rest rpc and rest resource are good > terms for these bindings. Maybe http rpc and http resource would be > less controversial.
Ooh, a controversy. Where? You haven't discussed the body type for this binding. Is this just a pass-through mechanism, with the intention of allowing it to be extended for specific encodings? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "phpsoa" group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
