• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’d rather see this than actual rest or the more popular use the bits of rest that are convenient.

    • traceur201@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Right? REST is the transport, if you bend it to convey general/application errors it’s probably going to get bent out of shape eventually in a way that’s hard to clean up

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The people that decide which rules are important or not when designing a “REST” api are generally insufferable as well.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yes I’d rather have a self defined standard that accurately covers the scope of an application and it’s use cases than stretch an old standard design for basic hierarchical text docs to work for a modern application.

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          59 minutes ago

          And what’s inherently new in modern applications? We’re transferring state and operating on resources just like we used to do. Most web apps are variations of CRUD.