Re: REST and DELETE?

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Erik Wilde <[email protected]> wrote:
> hello.
>
>
> On 2012-08-09 11:52 , Mike Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Dan Haywood
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> wrote:
>>     On the second of those posts Stefan Tilkov made (what I thought was)
>>     a very pertinent comment:
>>     /I think this is a specific case of the general scenario where
>>
>>     resources are coupled behind the scenes. If they're part of the same
>>     "service", that's fine; if they're not, it violates the idea of
>>     loose coupling./
>>     /In other words: If I define cart and order processing as being part
>>
>>     of the same application or service, I can use the approach you
>>     criticize. If I aim to design them so they're independent, your
>>     alternative is better./
>>
>>     I thought that was pretty insightful.
>> Absolutely, key is that this is a design consideration rather than a
>> violation of any constraint.
>
>
> in theory, that's true. in practice, most people see no problem saying their
> cart is /cart/42 and that orders go to /cart/42/order and have no indication
> in the request that the order is about /cart/42. then when they want to
> switch to a different ordering mechanism, they break things, because they
> did not understand the implicit coupling between /cart/42/order and
> /cart/42/. my general strategy therefore is to strongly encourage designers
> to not couple things this way, because the advantages are minimal, and the
> potential problems substantial.
>

Agreed, thanks for clarifying!

Cheers,
M