This is just my opinion... Rest is particularly powerful when you think of your application as a service, and the URL schema as the API that you are exposing to the world. If you don't care that a third party be able to construct links to your content programatically, and you aren't exposing anything as a web service, then pretty URL's are the main benefit.
But remember REST is about more than URL structure, you also have to agree to preserve the "natural" statelessness of the web in your application. So cookies, and Session variables, which change what you see at a given URL aren't allowed. Thinking of URL's as an API, and removing session state makes it easier to use your application in different ways than you origonally intended. But for a simple web app, which isn't going to be exposed as a service anywhere, REST may not always be a high priority. The answer to the question "is technique X worth it?" is pretty much always: "Well, that depends on what you're trying to do..." REST is the same. Some applications need it, some don't. But if you are exposing a web service REST+JSON is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than SOAP! --Mark Ramm On 12/3/06, Steve Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm thinking about converting an application to RESTful URLs just to > see what the hoopla is about. Everyone seems to be talking about REST, > but I must confess that, other than prettier URLs, I don't see what's > so great about it. > > Could someone fill me in on the practical advantages? > > Thanks, > Steve > > > > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
