On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>wrote:
It just means you need to pass parameters to the actuator via a GET or POST request (GET comes to mind first but POST works with more/larger parameters)...
I hope I don't get a visit from the REST police for this comment, but wouldn't the GET here be frowned upon ... (??)
Meh, it doesn't matter if you push a button, poke it with a stick, kick it or use the force - the result is the same. If anyone is to be getting a visit from the REST police I guess it's me but on reviewing Tim's insightful RESTful Causistry<http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/03/20/Rest-Casuistry>post (and the comments) I think we're on the right track here... he talks about GET but I think either would do. I don't mind this being an exception - as Peter Keene points out<http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/03/20/Rest-Casuistry#c1237598640.454904>this is "not really an appropriately decomposed task for a REST architecture". Seth Ladd makes an interesting suggestion<http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/03/20/Rest-Casuistry#c1237592841.237066>about modeling activities as nouns like "running" and "backing up", which could coexist. Elegant but complicated - let's KISS with what we have. Sam