GET and Humans vs. Machines

Don Box's Spoutlet

Syndication

Mark has an interesting post on the (lack of) requirements for humans in the face of GET.

No matter where you land on the REST spectrum, I think it's very easy to make the case for GET as an exceedingly common idiom in “machine facing” scenarios.

There are tons of precedents here outside of the web context:

1. COM Monikers. Very similar in both syntax and function to GET albeit in a proprietary programming system rather than a protocol.

2. OLE2's IDataObject.GetData. Again, a uniform mechanism for retriving representations (with content negotiation no less!). Very heavily used even today.

3. Database connection strings/SQL queries. Yet another string-based scheme for referencing data against a uniform (albiet plugable) access mechanism.

4. S-expressions. OK, this one is a bit of a stretch (especially if you deeply buy into the “Resource“ in REST). But again, uniform textual syntax + a uniform “access” mechanism (eval).

I've used the “URL as S-expr/HTTP GET as R-eval“ analogy more than once and its a facinating discussion to have, especially if you're open to alternative theories as to how the web actually works.

 


Posted Mar 07 2007, 02:24 AM by don-box

Comments

on 03-19-2007 6:58 AM
I’ve collected lots of somewhat REST-connected posts in the last two weeks, but somehow can’t seem to find the time to comment … so here’s a quick linkdump: Verbs and Interaction patterns, Benjamin Carlyle, including some interesting thoughts on a gateway approach between WS-* and REST Mark Nottingham on REST issues, real and imagined — good points, especially regarding URI...

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?