Both REST AND HTTP allow you to specify your own verbs and media types! What I was suggesting was that the semantics of the API could be better expressed as its own media-type with specific semantics rather than try to force the existing HTTP 1.1 semantics on it.
Think WebDAV; specify the API via an RFC like document and implement it that way the end result is not only easier to use, document and implement, other providers could implement compatible API implementations.
Seriously, has anyone here actually READ Fieldings paper?
But it wasn't hard to find something about standard methods and media types.
> REST enables intermediate processing by constraining messages to be self-descriptive: interaction is stateless between requests, standard methods and media types are used to indicate semantics and exchange information, and responses explicitly indicate cacheability.
Thank you for your honesty. It's refreshing and I appreciate it.
I'm not sure if your response is an attempt at a counter argument, but the line "... standard methods and media types are used to indicate semantics and exchange information, and responses explicitly indicate cacheability" is exactly the point I'm making.
If the original author was keen to make their API RESTful (which I'm not particularly sure they are. Aside from the couple of minor issues people have already raised, there is nothing wrong with a JSON API served over HTTP. It's just not RESTful), they would standardize their media-types (by registering them with IANA) and document their custom HTTP verbs via a RFC. That is what is required to be truely RESTful.
In the example I gave, showed that by adhering to the principles of REST, they could actually simplify their API dramatically whilst allowing others to lean on their work (by implementing their own services that use their newly registered media-types).
Again, all this is documented in Fieldings dissertation. It is dense reading and very academic, but it's worth reading. I personally found it very enlightening.
Think WebDAV; specify the API via an RFC like document and implement it that way the end result is not only easier to use, document and implement, other providers could implement compatible API implementations.
Seriously, has anyone here actually READ Fieldings paper?