No, I don't mean nothing of that, and I don't understand why you reach that
conclusion from what I wrote.
I mean for true HATEOAS to be implemented, the server should be free to
implement whatever he wants on his side, without the client pre-knowledge
of that, and that application state changes should be driven by the server,
not by the pre-knowledge of the client.
On Apr 27, 2009 10:03am, James Strachan <james.strachan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/4/27 António Mota amsmota_at_gmail.com>:
> > As I said, there's nothing wrong with that. However, doing that implies
> that
> > the application doesn't respect the HATEOAS constraint, even if it has
> > "connectedness".
> You mean for true HATEOAS you have to keep changing URIs to keep
> things pure and avoid those pesky impure non-REST folks using a
> bookmark, link or search engine? :).
> I don't quite follow how using HATEOAS is mutually exclusive with
> trying to avoid changing URIs so you are also a good web citizen
> --
> James
> -------
> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
> Open Source Integration
> http://fusesource.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net