contents/articles/to-rest-or-not-to-rest.html
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 |
----- title: "To REST or not to REST?" content-type: article timestamp: 1190605680 tags: "rails" ----- <p>Lately I’ve been reading quite a bit about Rails’ <span class="caps">REST</span> approach, and to be totally honest I’m not 100% convinced it can always be a good idea. The purpose of this post is to re-evaluate the situation, and ask other people their opinion on the matter.</p> <p>Let’s see…</p> <h3>Key Benefits</h3> <p>To cut a long story short, from my understanding <span class="caps">REST</span> can be a good thing because:</p> <ul> <li>It introduces the powerful concept of “resources”, which is independent from the presentation. This basically means that you can have your “resources” represented in <span class="caps">HTML</span>. <span class="caps">XML</span> etc. etc. “for free”. If you are making an extensive use of web services, this is truly a bless.</li> <li>Each <span class="caps">CRUD</span> action is carried out using a different <span class="caps">HTTP</span> command (get, post, put and delete). At present, because most browsers don’t understand <span class="caps">PUT</span> or <span class="caps">DELETE</span> requested, this is somehow simulated by Rails.</li> <li>By thinking and modeling your application in terms of resources, everything should always be “in the right place”.</li> </ul> <h3>Downsides?</h3> <p>Let’s now try to summarize what made me think more carefully this approach…</p> <ul> <li>While I really like Rails’ convention over configuration philosophy, this sounds a tiny bit too extreme for me. In the end it could be good, but it requires developers to completely re-think the way they develop their application in order to be 100% RESTful.</li> <li>URLs aren’t that pretty anymore. While <a href="http://themysteriouswaysofruby.blogspot.com/2007/04/pretty-restful-urls-in-rails.html">someone</a> suggested a way to improve the way RESTful URLs look, that sounds like extra hassle to me. It’s subjective, I know, but I really don’t like using IDs in the url… I’d rather go for an univocal code any day (check out this site… I don’t even like dates in my blog).</li> <li>Sometimes, it may take quite a bit to figure out how to model some functionality using resources. While it is straightforward when you want to perform <span class="caps">CRUD</span> operations, modeling a search action or authentication may be a bit tricky and may also feel a bit forced. Again, maybe it’s just me.</li> <li>It may be a bit too early to take full advantage of this approach. <span class="caps">PUT</span> and <span class="caps">DELETE</span> are simulated, and this doesn’t sound right — agreed, that’s the only way for now, but it still sounds like a forceful workaround. Browsers are not RESTful (yet)!</li> <li>All resources are virtually accessible by a <span class="caps">URL</span>. I’m not a security expert, but this scares me a bit.</li> </ul> <p>Here are some posts which made me think a bit:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2007/04/looking-for-good-argument-against-rest.html">Looking for a good argument against <span class="caps">REST</span></a></li> </ul> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.ipbabble.com/2007/07/restful_myths.html">RESTful Myths: Unraveling the Confusion</a></li> </ul> <ul> <li><a href="http://blog.livollmers.net/index.php/2007/06/26/why-cant-web-apps-be-rest-ful/">Why Can’t Web Apps Be <span class="caps">REST</span>-ful?</a></li> </ul> <p>The bottom line is: is <span class="caps">REST</span> really worth the hassle? Especially for small and simple applications like a blog, is it really worthwhile to coerce myself to adopt a RESTful approach when I could accomplish exactly the same things with much less hassle?</p> <p>In other words, is <span class="caps">REST</span> really the answer to everything or in <em>some cases</em> it is just <em>not necessary</em>?</p> <p>And also (OK, this may sound harsh and impolite): does it really make sense to push people to adopt a RESTful approach no matter what? Sometimes someone may get the feeling that Rails is all about <span class="caps">REST</span> now. Is that true, or is there still room for <del>freedom</del> other views?</p> <p>Looking forward to hear your comments, but please be nice and civilized!</p> |