patnakajima on 21 Mar 2007 20:01:54 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PhillyOnRails] April POR Meeting - Please RSVP

I've found that rails provides for reasonably restful apps, but I think making a purely restful app just for the sake of doing so is tantamount to plastering your page with buttons declaring your code to be 100% standards compliant. It's good to think about, but obsessing over it can cancel out the benefits of having such a great rapid development tool in the first place.
Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless  

-----Original Message-----
From: Flinn Mueller <>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:54:21
Subject: Re: [PhillyOnRails] April POR Meeting - Please RSVP

I'm pissed@REST too. 

I've experimented with it and I hate the implementation.  It feels  
hacked for HTML consumption.  I can see providing a pure REST  
implementation only for the purpose of providing an API, but actually  
trying to make your own rails app use it seems to be a bit clunky  

On Mar 21, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Randy Schmidt wrote:

> (I know know if this made it on the list from my other email
> address...sorry if it is a dup)
> Sorry if this is a little off topic, but has anybody completed an app
> using REST? I for the most part understand the restful architecture
> and how it relates to resources, but I keep going back and forth about
> the best way to architect the rest of an app that isn't CRUD such as
> wrapping parts in an admin interface. I haven't seem much material
> that doesn't do anything besides the obvious when it comes to CRUD and
> resources. On the rails way, they mention one resource that is
> associated with a model and one that is not. And in the peepcode
> screencast, Geoffrey mentions using just another layout for an admin
> interface but he didn't go into specifics about how it would work. It
> seems kind of messy to me. I have also tried looking at Beast forum
> (be careful typing that into google) to see how he architects things
> but I don't think there really is an "admin interface".
> One of the examples I think of is a user and an admin should be able
> to edit the user's profile, but the admin should be able to edit more
> than the user (for example to approve them). This would use the
> edit/update methods for each case. Do I embed the permissions in both
> actions and then embed logic in the view that shows more fields if
> they are an admin? If done that way, it seems as though the
> controllers are getting quite heavy. Is this really a push to not have
> an admin interface at all and show edit links in more places if the
> user is an admin? And admin may also want to view data associated with
> the site in a different way than the regular users, where does that
> fit in.
> Are we "allowed" to use a hybrid architecture where we use REST for
> all of the resources and then create controllers if need to view the
> info differently?
> I think it would be interesting to hear/see how someone has used REST
> for a complete application since using it to manage a model seems to
> be pretty simple and straight-forward.
> I'm dying to get this worked out since it is almost painful working on
> apps "the old way" after playing with a RESTful app.
> Randy
> On 3/21/07, Colin A. Bartlett <>  
> wrote:
>> Eric Snyder Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:21 PM
>> > The Restful Rails screencast may be a good one for the meeting.
>> Great idea. I've tried to wrap my head around REST and have been a  
>> little
>> lost. I'm probably not the only one. (Or maybe I am.)
>> The Ruby puzzlers are fun, too. But REST is more Rails-specific  
>> rather than
>> Ruby in general.
>> Either way, I'll be there.
>> Colin
>> _______________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> -- 
> Randy Schmidt
> 267.334.6833
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:

To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: