Re: Re: Self-descriptive messages

Nathan,

"On RESTful Basket State" [1] (from some time ago, but still pertinent).

[1] http://alandean.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/on-restful-basket-state.html

Regards,
Alan Dean


On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>