> It's an architectural style. It's not something that's formal.
There lies the problem, some people still say that it something IS formal(thus they think they speak out of authority) Truth is,nobody has a fn clue what REST really is aside from its "creator", I still don't know myself and trust me , I read the original paper.
The problem is also that people oppose REST and XML-RPC when in fact XML-RPC IS a protocol,when REST is not. REST never ever said what a resource should look like, nor what a URL should look like. Strange for something that is supposed to replace SOAP ? (and i'm not a fan of SOAP )
The lack of formalism of REST has done a great deal of damage IMHO(One client per api...), so much than people are now reverting to SOAP like protocols ( like GraphQL , a unique client per language).
There lies the problem, some people still say that it something IS formal(thus they think they speak out of authority) Truth is,nobody has a fn clue what REST really is aside from its "creator", I still don't know myself and trust me , I read the original paper.
The problem is also that people oppose REST and XML-RPC when in fact XML-RPC IS a protocol,when REST is not. REST never ever said what a resource should look like, nor what a URL should look like. Strange for something that is supposed to replace SOAP ? (and i'm not a fan of SOAP )
The lack of formalism of REST has done a great deal of damage IMHO(One client per api...), so much than people are now reverting to SOAP like protocols ( like GraphQL , a unique client per language).