Re: Re: Self-descriptive messages

REST 6.3.4.2 may have some bearing here..

''As a result, cookie-based applications on the Web will never be 
reliable. The same functionality should have been accomplished via 
anonymous authentication and true client-side state. A state mechanism 
that involves preferences can be more efficiently implemented using 
judicious use of context-setting URI rather than cookies, where 
judicious means one URI per state rather than an unbounded number of URI 
due to the embedding of a user-id. Likewise, the use of cookies to 
identify a user-specific "shopping basket" within a server-side database 
could be more efficiently implemented by defining the semantics of 
shopping items within the hypermedia data formats, *allowing the user 
agent to select and store those items within their own client-side 
shopping basket, complete with a URI to be used for check-out when the 
client is ready to purchase*''

IMHO, REST Chapter 6 is very valuable, and often ignored.

Best, Nathan

Moore, Jonathan (CIM) wrote:
> I think we need to separate the questions: "is this self-descriptive?" from "is this a good way to do shopping cart ordering?".
> 
> There's a very specific definition of self-descriptive (from a REST point-of-view) in Roy's thesis that this request passes. There are a whole bunch of other constraints that aren't part of REST that are needed for an e-commerce system that it almost certainly doesn't, including non-repudiation, transparency of intent, etc.
> 
> I'm *not* arguing you should build shopping carts this way; I'm just arguing it fits the very specific, technical definition of self-descriptive. REST isn't a magic wand--meeting its constraints doesn't guarantee you've built a suitable system.
> 
> Jon
> ........
> Jon Moore
> 
> 
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 3:10 AM, "Bob" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I lost a long argument with Mark Baker a year and a half ago on this very subject and scenario.
> 
> I argued that including the URL to a saved offer-to-buy in a message to convert it into an order was adequately self-descriptive.
> 
> At the end of the discussion, I accepted Mark's position, and abandoned my own.
> 
> However, I thought of another reason that convinced me even more of the correctness of Mark's argument from a business standpoint, and that is non-repudiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation
> 
> That is, if both parties to an electronic agreement send, receive and sign each of the full messages exchanged in the dialog, maybe even exchanging the whole built-up sequence each time, they have a record of the agreement that would be difficult for either party to repudiate.
> 
> This reason may not have been Roy's reason for including self-descriptive messages as a REST constraint, but it would be important in business contract situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/