Comment on Embracing REST with mind, body and soul (Rails and the new respond_with)Comments−jamesbritt17yDo folks here buy into the REST == CRUD mapping the way it's basked into Rails?−evdawgOP17yI don't know... do you want to elaborate a little more on that?−jamesbritt17yFor example, the pairing of PUT with 'update' , with only POST allowed to create new resource, versus allowing clients to PUT a new resource (effectively creating them) when given the proper URL.See, for example, http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForRE...and in particular the idea that REST is about documents, not databases. "The data model is _not_ the resource model," as one comment there puts it.Also, CRUD makes no allowance for HEAD and OPTIONS, as if they don't even exist.I see too, in digging around for links, that this has been discussed on HN before (big surprise, no?): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629843
Comments
Do folks here buy into the REST == CRUD mapping the way it's basked into Rails?
I don't know... do you want to elaborate a little more on that?
For example, the pairing of PUT with 'update' , with only POST allowed to create new resource, versus allowing clients to PUT a new resource (effectively creating them) when given the proper URL.
See, for example, http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForRE...
and in particular the idea that REST is about documents, not databases. "The data model is _not_ the resource model," as one comment there puts it.
Also, CRUD makes no allowance for HEAD and OPTIONS, as if they don't even exist.
I see too, in digging around for links, that this has been discussed on HN before (big surprise, no?): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629843