Re: Bookmark 'stability'
Andrei Neculau <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.rest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAOGnN1eE4MnjEp5MrjwSeSqDn=6zQGhGUbsrh5MMkoGEfVz2gw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jan Algermissen <[email protected] > wrote: > because clients will bookmark, servers pretty much have an implicit > obligation to maintain URIs over time once they 'got out'. > > May question was circeling around the issue whether this ws more true for > some URIs than for others. > more true for some URIs? yes, for those marked "bookmark" I don't see that, as a server, I have more of an obligation to maintain an URI (that is not marked "bookmark"), than maintaining resource state (ludicracy intended). If you think that bookmarking is not coupling (client and server are free from each other), then why this topic altogether? What is your definition of coupling? I like this physics' one "a device for joining two rotating shafts semipermanently at their ends so as to transmit torque from one to the other" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coupling :) System A and system B now communicate via URI X. Just like they maybe communicate via a defined media-type ?!