[Dancer-users] Dancer-users Digest, Vol 10, Issue 45

Al Newkirk & Associates we at ana.im
Mon Dec 27 13:33:28 CET 2010


i concur

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 6:00 AM, <dancer-users-request at perldancer.org>wrote:

> Send Dancer-users mailing list submissions to
>        dancer-users at perldancer.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://www.backup-manager.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/dancer-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        dancer-users-request at perldancer.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        dancer-users-owner at perldancer.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Dancer-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Dancer::Plugin::REST proposal (Puneet Kishor)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:43:48 -0600
> From: Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Dancer-users] Dancer::Plugin::REST proposal
> To: Naveed Massjouni <naveedm9 at gmail.com>
> Cc: dancer-users <dancer-users at perldancer.org>
> Message-ID: <4D174694.6050307 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> First, my thanks to Alexis for writing Dancer::Plugin::REST (DPR), and
> thanks to Naveed for continually responding to my persistent questions
> and now continuing this very important thread. Supporting REST (via DPR)
> should be a core objective of Dancer, by making it as easy as pie
> (although, personally, I have never found making a pie to be easy -- the
> crust in particular requires great skill). REST is the core of linked
> data and the semantic web, and these are great technologies and
> objectives worthy of support.
>
> More below.
>
> Naveed Massjouni wrote:
> > DISCLAIMER:
> > I know this is the mailing list for Dancer, but I am writing about a
> > particular plugin.  I think it is relevant because it is a pretty
> > important plugin and also because I would like to hear everyone's
> > opinion.  Especially Sukria, since it's his plugin.
> >
> > There has been several REST related posts recently and it has reminded
> > me of something that has been bugging me about the
> > Dancer::Plugin::REST module.  It provides the keyword resource which
> > works as follows:
> >
> >      resource user =>
> >          get    =>  sub { # return user where id = params->{id}   },
> >          create =>  sub { # create a new user with params->{user} },
> >          delete =>  sub { # delete user where id = params->{id}   },
> >          update =>  sub { # update user with params->{user}       };
> >
> > But a PUT/POST in REST does not always correspond to UPDATE/CREATE.
>
>  From what I understand, PUT and POST may be interchangeable, but here
> is how it should play out. PUT should be used when the resource name is
> known in advance. POST should be used when the resource name is not
> known in advance. So, the following scenario --
>
> PUT http://server/Puneet-Kishor
>
> vs.
>
> POST http://server/{a bunch of data that would create a new resource
> whose URI would be 'Puneet-Kishor'}
>
> The above seems silly because in the latter scenario (the POST) too I
> know what the name of the resource is going to be. But, such is not
> always the case. For example, in my current scenario, I am allowing
> users to do some analysis and then save that analysis with an easy to
> remember name. However, there is no guarantee they will always choose a
> unique or a meaningful name. The name is just a mnemonic for making it
> easy for *a* user to remember what she did, not a guarantee for global
> uniqueness (GFGU). The GFGU is promised via an analysis ID created by
> the primary key of the data store in which the analyses are stored.
>
> Additionally, in my scenario the retrieval of the resource is via the
> idea such as
>
> GET http://server/17
>
> which gels well with the idea of sending a bunch of data to the server
> via a POST, and letting the server generate the ID that will become the
> URI for that resource.
>
> Of course, in the above scenario, POST also corresponds to an update.
>
> See the definition of POST from
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html
>
> <quote>
>       - Annotation of existing resources;
>       - Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list,
>         or similar group of articles;
>       - Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a
>         form, to a data-handling process;
>       - Extending a database through an append operation.
> </quote>
>
> That last item, "Extending a database through an append operation,"
> corresponds to my scenario.
>
> Further down in the same RFC
>
> <quote>
> The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is
> reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a POST
> request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity.
> That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to some other
> protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast,
> the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request
> -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT
> attempt to apply the request to some other resource. If the server
> desires that the request be applied to a different URI, it MUST send a
> 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent MAY then make its own
> decision regarding whether or not to redirect the request.
> </quote>
>
> And, finally, "The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE" should be
> idempotent. This means that repeated applications of these methods
> should result in exactly the same effect on the store as a single
> application. Obviously, POST doesn't belong in this list because
> repeated applications of POST (an update) does modify the store
> differently each time.
>
> I believe Dancer should follow RFC 2616 Section 9 to the t in order to
> be a good semantic web citizen.
>
> > One of my favorite articles on this topic is:
> >
> >
> http://jcalcote.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/put-or-post-the-rest-of-the-story/
> >
> > It's worth reading even if you don't agree with it in the end.  It
> > will at least show you a different perspective.  Also, his argument is
> > backed up by the HTTP spec.  He argues that a PUT can be used to
> > update or create a resource, and the same for a POST.
> >
> > So I have some proposals that could make everyone happy, hopefully.
> > Even if you are happy with the existing CRUD mapping.  I think the
> > REST plugin should also support mappings from a resource to http
> > verbs, in addition to the way it works now.  For example:
> >
> >      resource user =>
> >          get    =>  sub { # return user where id = params->{id}   },
> >          create =>  sub { # create a new user with params->{user} },
> >          delete =>  sub { # delete user where id = params->{id}   },
> >          update =>  sub { # update user with params->{user}       },
> >          # and also
> >          post   =>  sub { },
> >          put    =>  sub { };
> >
> > Even better is if it supported a dispatch table style:
> >
> >      resource user =>  {
> >          get    =>  sub { },
> >          delete =>  sub { },
> >          post   =>  sub { },
> >          put    =>  sub { },
> >      };
> >
> > Notice that the second argument to 'resource' is a hashref in the
> > above example.  Another cool thing it could support is:
> >
> >      resource user =>  'User';
> >
> > Where 'User' is a package/class that could be defined in User.pm:
> >
> >      package User;
> >      sub get { ... }
> >      sub delete { ... }
> >      sub post { ... }
> >      sub put { ... }
> >      1;
> >
> > Another thing that could be improved is that the 'resource' function
> > throws an exception if the user did not provide mappings for all 4
> > operations/verbs.  But there is no requirement that a resource should
> > support all http verbs.  The 'resource' function could provide routes
> > which return a status of 405 Method Not Allowed, for the missing
> > verbs.
> >
> > Do you guys like any of these ideas?  Should these ideas be
> > incorporated into the existing REST plugin or a new plugin?  I would
> > be glad to implement them, but I wanted to make sure my changes would
> > be accepted before doing the work.
>
>
> I like your ideas very much. I like the mapping of "resource" to a
> package that in turn implements the methods, and that throws an
> exception of all 4 verbs are not supported, but also allows a manual
> override. Mapping to a package will allow me to cleanly build interfaces
> for my different kinds of data, allowing me to separate the treatment
> for each kind of data in its own package.
>
> However, most important, by following RFC 2616-9, your proposed
> direction would make my application really useful, predictable, and in
> conformance with the expectations of the world of linked data.
>
> Dancer is truly a wonderful framework. In the beginning its new and easy
> style for building a web application excited me. Now I am realizing a
> new purpose for Dancer. Even though I am putting a lot of work in my web
> application, suddenly I care less about that application than in the
> access to the data. Suddenly the user of the application is less
> important than the user of the data. In fact, my application itself has
> become an user of my data.
>
> Thought carefully through, Dancer can really make very important
> contributions to the world of semantic web and linked data by allowing
> Perl practitioners build useful data access applications that follow the
> recommended, modern principles.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Naveed
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dancer-users mailing list
> > Dancer-users at perldancer.org
> > http://www.backup-manager.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/dancer-users
>
>
>
> --
> Puneet Kishor http://punkish.org
> Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
> Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
> Science Fellow
> http://creativecommons.org/about/people/fellows#puneetkishor
> Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
> ===========================================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dancer-users mailing list
> Dancer-users at perldancer.org
> http://www.backup-manager.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/dancer-users
>
>
> End of Dancer-users Digest, Vol 10, Issue 45
> ********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.backup-manager.org/pipermail/dancer-users/attachments/20101227/da6cc1af/attachment.htm>


More information about the Dancer-users mailing list