[rt-users] ruby -> REST

[Jesse Vincent]

> It also seems bizarre to me to implement the interface that way.  Basically
> its like making a web page with a single text area named "content" and then
> requiring formatting within that one field.  Why not have the REST interface
> have discrete fields?  Coding to it would be certainly be cleaner.  Maybe
> for /REST/2.0/ ?

When it was implemented in 2002(?) or so, REST best practices were much
less clear. And the initial design goal involved being able to implement
a commandline client as a shell script with wget and a text editor.
RFC822-encoded forms were a very straight forward way to get from A to
B.

If I were doing it today[1], I'd do it differently.


    -Jesse

[1] And indeed, RT4 is based on Jifty and serves up both the legacy /REST/1.0 interface and Jifty's much more modern REST interface: http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/SARTAK/Jifty-0.80408/lib/Jifty/Plugin/REST/Dispatcher.pm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20090217/4e4e621c/attachment.sig>