Comments on: RESTFul XML content negotiation http://bill.burkecentral.com/2008/03/05/restful-xml-content-negotitation/ Software plumbing using middleware wrenches Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Douglas Creager http://bill.burkecentral.com/2008/03/05/restful-xml-content-negotitation/#comment-3262 Douglas Creager Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:38:42 +0000 http://billburke.wordpress.com/?p=99#comment-3262 Hi Bill, thanks for the good summary and the links. You mention server-side transformation as your motivating problem. I looked at something rather similar for my <a href="http://dcreager.net/publications/012-dphil-thesis/" rel="nofollow">DPhil thesis</a>. My work was based on the idea of using a graph to represent the available transformations, which allows you to use a simple shortest path algorithm to find a transformation between two arbitrary datatypes. These posts re-sparked my interest, so I've written a follow-up <a href="http://dcreager.net/2009/12/21/decentralized-datatypes/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, if you're interested. Hi Bill, thanks for the good summary and the links. You mention server-side transformation as your motivating problem. I looked at something rather similar for my DPhil thesis. My work was based on the idea of using a graph to represent the available transformations, which allows you to use a simple shortest path algorithm to find a transformation between two arbitrary datatypes.

These posts re-sparked my interest, so I’ve written a follow-up here, if you’re interested.

]]> By: billburke http://bill.burkecentral.com/2008/03/05/restful-xml-content-negotitation/#comment-2178 billburke Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:22:11 +0000 http://billburke.wordpress.com/?p=99#comment-2178 Mike, thanks for your opinion, but you didn't express *why* you didn't like the properties approach. I just don't see any logical difference between the vnd.* approach and the properties approach except the properties approach is more usable in other environments. Mike, thanks for your opinion, but you didn’t express *why* you didn’t like the properties approach. I just don’t see any logical difference between the vnd.* approach and the properties approach except the properties approach is more usable in other environments.

]]> By: Mike Amundsen http://bill.burkecentral.com/2008/03/05/restful-xml-content-negotitation/#comment-2177 Mike Amundsen Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:17:46 +0000 http://billburke.wordpress.com/?p=99#comment-2177 I'm not a fan of the MIME properties approach. Also, while it would be *nice* if browsers would auto-magically render custom MIME types, that's not a valid primary criteria for defining new MIME types, IMHO. As for defining new types, registering them, etc. - i use the aplication/vnd.* without too much concern. true, some folks will not know what this MIME type is but that's not very important for most applications. In fact, i usually use these custom MIME types for versioning and allow "application/xml" or "text/xml" to be mapped to the most recent version anyway. I’m not a fan of the MIME properties approach. Also, while it would be *nice* if browsers would auto-magically render custom MIME types, that’s not a valid primary criteria for defining new MIME types, IMHO.

As for defining new types, registering them, etc. – i use the aplication/vnd.* without too much concern. true, some folks will not know what this MIME type is but that’s not very important for most applications. In fact, i usually use these custom MIME types for versioning and allow “application/xml” or “text/xml” to be mapped to the most recent version anyway.

]]> By: Ryan J. McDonough http://bill.burkecentral.com/2008/03/05/restful-xml-content-negotitation/#comment-1834 Ryan J. McDonough Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:14:17 +0000 http://billburke.wordpress.com/?p=99#comment-1834 MIME properties can offer a lot of flexibility, such as specifying the version. I don't know that Sun actually does anything with it, but the Java plugin specifies both the type along with the versions it supports. With that said, you could even extend this idea to support different versions of the same type. This opens up the possibility to potentially support older clients while also offering new features to updates clients, all without having to alter the services URI structure. Ryan- MIME properties can offer a lot of flexibility, such as specifying the version. I don’t know that Sun actually does anything with it, but the Java plugin specifies both the type along with the versions it supports. With that said, you could even extend this idea to support different versions of the same type. This opens up the possibility to potentially support older clients while also offering new features to updates clients, all without having to alter the services URI structure.

Ryan-

]]> By: Mark Little http://bill.burkecentral.com/2008/03/05/restful-xml-content-negotitation/#comment-1822 Mark Little Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:30:20 +0000 http://billburke.wordpress.com/?p=99#comment-1822 Hi Bill. Yes, the MIME extension does work. If I recall, we played around with this approach in <a href="http://w3objects.ncl.ac.uk/" rel="nofollow">early W3Objects work</a>, but that wasn't intentionally REST based back then. Hi Bill. Yes, the MIME extension does work. If I recall, we played around with this approach in early W3Objects work, but that wasn’t intentionally REST based back then.

]]>