Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parse Releases Their REST API

parse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#21

Post by robinhowlett »

psadauskas wrote: post #5
KevBurnsJr wrote: post #2

This is an HTTP API, not a REST API. http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hyperte...

Furthering our wanderings down this off-topic thread, I agree with you completely, but every time I point it out, I get accused of being a "pedant". I've implemented several truly restful APIs, and they've always worked beautifully, but they're internal or private. I tell others about it, and the immense advantages, but they see every other HTTP-RPC API out there and copy that instead. Why is it that there's no examp…

Subbu Allamaraju (ex-Yahoo, now eBay) has been the one proponent of REST that I believe speaks the most sense.

He understands that most "RESTful" APIs out there leave HATEOS as an afterthought, but he doesn't believe there is such a thing as a 100% RESTful API - you match the architectural style to the context of the problem you are trying to solve.

http://www.subbu.org/

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#22

Post by kevinpet »

KevBurnsJr wrote: post #2

This is an HTTP API, not a REST API. http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hyperte...

That's a valid criticism of APIs that think "it's not SOAP, so it must be REST", but this is close enough to REST that it seems pedantry to claim it isn't.

So all apologies to Roy Fielding, but through success, he has lost control of his terminology. This is what people mean by REST today.

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#23

Post by kevinpet »

generalk wrote: post #15
jethroalias97 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying if I wrote a "REST API" and everyone understood what that means, what would it matter whether or not it checks every box laid out by the originator of the term.

That makes it an effective form of communication, but not correct. If I talk to someone who's not computer-savvy and they describe a workflow as "I put the USB in the CPU and then drag all my files onto my screen" (verbatim quote) I can figure out what they mean and work with them, but they clearly don't understand the concepts.

Your comment contradicts current linguistics. There is no "correct" separate from usefulness in communication.

If someone wants to write a REST RFC, and people can talk about "RFC-6789 Compliant REST API" then correctness would reenter the picture.

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#24

Post by kevinpet »

Skroob wrote: post #19

I've never heard of Parse before, so thanks for the link because it looks like a dream come true for me.

I'd like to see the ability to delegate the storage to other accounts. That is, I want XYZ app to use my parse account, not XYZs. It sounds a good place to hook in what I'd like to see around owning my own data and having universal access to it.

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#25

Post by [deleted] »

enjo wrote: post #13
psadauskas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthering our wanderings down this off-topic thread, I agree with you completely, but every time I point it out, I get accused of being a "pedant". I've implemented several truly restful APIs, and they've always worked beautifully, but they're internal or private. I tell others about it, and the immense advantages, but they see every other HTTP-RPC API out there and copy that instead. Why is it that there's no examp…

Twilio is pretty close.

[deleted]

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#26

Post by KevBurnsJr »

robinhowlett wrote: post #21
psadauskas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthering our wanderings down this off-topic thread, I agree with you completely, but every time I point it out, I get accused of being a "pedant". I've implemented several truly restful APIs, and they've always worked beautifully, but they're internal or private. I tell others about it, and the immense advantages, but they see every other HTTP-RPC API out there and copy that instead. Why is it that there's no examp…

Subbu Allamaraju (ex-Yahoo, now eBay) has been the one proponent of REST that I believe speaks the most sense. He understands that most "RESTful" APIs out there leave HATEOS as an afterthought, but he doesn't believe there is such a thing as a 100% RESTful API - you match the architectural style to the context of the problem you are trying to solve. http://www.subbu.org/

Saw Subbu speak at RestFest on Saturday. His talk seemed to promote REST as a set of constraints which produces a set of benefits. He argues that choosing a subset of constraints to achieve a subset of benefits is perfectly valid.

I would add that you must first have a deep understanding of the constraints and their associated benefits in order to make those types of informed decisions about your system's architecture. In my experience, the constraints are so orthogonal that a great number of the benefits of a system created using the REST architectural style only become evident in the overlap as the constraints empower each other.

Combining these constraints can elicit new benefits.

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#27

Post by loup-vaillant »

kevinpet wrote: post #22
KevBurnsJr wrote: post #2

This is an HTTP API, not a REST API. http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hyperte...

That's a valid criticism of APIs that think "it's not SOAP, so it must be REST", but this is close enough to REST that it seems pedantry to claim it isn't. So all apologies to Roy Fielding, but through success, he has lost control of his terminology. This is what people mean by REST today.

That reminds me of what happened to "Object Oriented". First, Alan Kay coined the term, having something like Smaltalk in head (emphasis on messages, and a strong dislike of unchecked side effects like setters and the assignment statement). Then the term was subverted, and we got C++ and Java (emphasis on classes, and a near-total disregard for the problems of pervasive side effects[1]).

My point is, we should be careful before we corrupt a term. Doing so corrupts our perception of the concept itself. And if it turns out the corrupt concept is less help than the pure one, too late : it's already popular.

[1]: That assignment thing really sucks: http://www.loup-vaillant.fr/articles/assignment

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#29

Post by KevBurnsJr »

kevinpet wrote: post #22
KevBurnsJr wrote: post #2

This is an HTTP API, not a REST API. http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hyperte...

That's a valid criticism of APIs that think "it's not SOAP, so it must be REST", but this is close enough to REST that it seems pedantry to claim it isn't. So all apologies to Roy Fielding, but through success, he has lost control of his terminology. This is what people mean by REST today.

Your argument appears to be unconcerned with truth, wisdom or understanding.

Re: Parse Releases Their REST API

#30

Post by Nemisis7654 »

chubs wrote: post #28

I'm a big fan of these guys - i just send a support question and got a response in 4 minutes!

Yeah, these guys are great. I recently received a personalized email about an update they were releasing and then I was asked about the application I was building. It's little things like that that make me like these guys and will make me stick with them.

Edit: Spelling.

Post reply on HN