Re: [cgiapp] RFC: CGI::Application::Plugin::REST

[Jason Purdy <suppressed>]

I'm probably missing something, but I ran across this article a few days 
ago[1] and the huge red flag for me was:

" ... In 2006 browser vendors still don't support PUT and DELETE."

Is this right?  Should we worry about REST if no one can (properly) use 
them?

Cheers,

Jason

[1]: http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/why_put_and_delete.html

Timothy Appnel wrote:
> I had been giving better REST support in CGI::Application some thought
> lately. David Heinemeier Hansson (The Larry Wall of Ruby on Rails) has
> been saying about how impressed he is with REST, and particularly Atom
> Publishing Protocol, lately.[1] He's been so impressed that RoR with
> have built-in support for rapidly creating RESTful application.
>
> After review this module, I have to agree with Michael. Functionality
> for supporting RESTful applications should be in Dispatch though a
> separate utility class for automating some of the standard application
> status returns may be warranted.
>
> I like the way Catalyst::Action::REST implements its REST
> functionality personally. In my mind its much clearer as it applies
> convention over configuration. Its also less of a departure from how
> things work now. Doing it this way wouldn't be too difficult in
> Dispatch either. There is one area I'm unsure of though -- should the
> mixing of REST-enabled and "standard" application modules be permitted
> by Dispatch or should a developer be forced to choose one direction or
> another?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> <tim/>
>
> [1] http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000593.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
             http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed