|
|
|
|
|
by rdtsc
4858 days ago
|
|
> A key features of a REST API is that is self describable How practical is that, in reality? I know I've added the whole HATEOAS thing to my API and I am not sure if it just makes my IDs longer. Customers seem to hard-code the API entry points anyway. Everyone of course says "Oh, yeah this is cool" but when it comes to doing it given performance constraints, they don't want to start generating 10s of extra GET requests on startup to rediscover the API. Now I can say "well not my problem" and that is what I say, except that looking back and I just don't see the practice match with the supposed theoretical advantages of the REST-ful interface. Another issue I see happening, is the return of message bus like interface brought about by Websockets and server push optimizations it makes possible. I think REST and Websocket's channels/message bus architectures will have a battle at some point -- and one will end up dominating. Just like AMQP is becoming a standard for message brokers, I think at some point that will be extended to the browser. Kind of like RabbitMQ has the web-STOMP plugins. I can see future hotness being just that -- message broker architecture all the way to the web client and everyone will laugh at REST-ful hype just like we are laughing at SOAP now. |
|
Imagine you have a company that does custom mobile apps for external customers. A very popular topic, a lot of companies today want to have their own apps in addition to standard web pages.
Most of these apps are very similar (you can browse come content, purchase some service, etc.). Your company can go RPC way and create a custom interface and a custom client for each customer, with a lot of duplication and substantial maintenance cost. Or your can make larger upfront investment and create a generic REST client and then only design resources and representations for each new customer.