On Feb 27, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Luke Kanies <l...@madstop.com> wrote: > >> The big reason I thought about using parameters was just that we >> might >> need to version the overall API (the split between environment, >> resource type, and resource key) separately from the resource type >> API >> (any formatting within the key). This is probably doable with >> parameters, but starts to get ridiculous including the info in the >> actual URI. > > But in what sense does that really matter? > > We're not aiming for human readability as a primary aim are we? > > How bad would it really be to have 50 parameters on a URI ?
Certainly not primary, but it doesn't seem like a bad idea to at least make it reasonably usable for humans. At the least, it speaks to good interface design - a method that accepted 50 parameters would be a crappy method, so a URI composed of fifty semantic elements would be a crappy URI. And hey, someday maybe you *will* be able to telnet to the Puppet port and get reasonable information interactively. :) -- I happen to feel that the degree of a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting attitudes she can bring to bear on the same topic. -- Lisa Alther --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
