NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
several minutes ago. We don't need no stinkin' tactical nukes.
(By the way, do you have change for 10 million people?) --lwall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
URI design: for whom? (Score:1)
No, it doesn’t. It’s OK for humans to hack URIs, but programs should only ever follow links and leave the link structure of the site to the server’s whims. As far as programmatic user agents are concerned, URIs are completely opaque. This is the centrepiece of REST.
(I agree with your URI structure change anyway, though, for personal URI style reasons.)
Reply to This
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have to disagree on this one. For one thing, if I ever add a REST interface, I think this is an important distinction for folks. Generally, REST is something which you have to program; you can't just point a client at your site and hope it works. Thus, you want to make things as easy for the programmer to understand as possible. Second, it's important in general. People love to just slap crap into their URIs without considering structure. That's one of the many reasons why we get so many awful W
Re: (Score:1)
We cannot disagree, because the points you are talking about have nothing whatsoever to do with Representational State Transfer in the first place.
Sure I can. It depends on what level of expectations you have. A web proxy, f.ex., works regardless of whether it’s proxying requests to Google, Amazon or your private homepage. That works because it’s built to the web’s architecture,