But there was also a discussion about URIs and whether they should be opaque (meaningless) or sensibly named. I'd like to make a REST proposal
All URIs in REST must be meaningful, they should clearly articulate the type of resource and its place in the hierarchy, individual resource identification should be done via a GUID. The GUID is used to standardise the use of IDs and to provide a clear identifier of the meaningful and opaque parts of theURI.
http://www.foo.com/customer/invoicewould be a "good" URI starting point and
http://www.foo.com/customer/invoice/8900183b-fb31-4ee7-a5be-c78ada4b2312would be an individual resource identifier.
http://www.foo.com/customerwould be the customer starting point and
would be a specific customer.
To me the lack of agreement on naming conventions to REST is indicative of its prototyping feel. Agreeing that URIs MUST have meaningful names would make it simpler to debug, simpler for developers to understand and will clearly separate roots from resources.
Technorati Tags: REST