

Embracing REST with mind, body and soul (Rails and the new respond_with) - evdawg
http://blog.plataformatec.com.br/2009/08/embracing-rest-with-mind-body-and-soul/

======
jamesbritt
Do folks here buy into the REST == CRUD mapping the way it's basked into
Rails?

~~~
evdawg
I don't know... do you want to elaborate a little more on that?

~~~
jamesbritt
For example, the pairing of PUT with 'update' , with only POST allowed to
create new resource, versus allowing clients to PUT a new resource
(effectively creating them) when given the proper URL.

See, for example,
[http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForRE...](http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForREST.aspx)

and in particular the idea that REST is about documents, not databases. "The
data model is _not_ the resource model," as one comment there puts it.

Also, CRUD makes no allowance for HEAD and OPTIONS, as if they don't even
exist.

I see too, in digging around for links, that this has been discussed on HN
before (big surprise, no?): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629843>

