From: Tony L. <vk...@gm...> - 2014-03-24 04:43:20
|
On 24/03/2014 12:18 PM, Art Botterell wrote: > On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Tony Langdon <vk...@gm...> wrote: > >> And then we can get into "virtual rigs", which could represent >> anything. > One acid test I like to apply to designs is "what WON'T this let me do?" Unnecessary restrictions and constraints seem often to reflect underlying design flaws. Yep, makes sense to me. > >> Hmm, web interface? I need to establish the exact function of this, > Probably I should have said "web-service interface" to clarify that. Although one of the nice things about RESTful web interfaces is that it's usually easy to implement clients as browser-based apps, that's not a requirement. > > But I'm talking strictly server-side here. Just using HTTP for transport and allowing all requests to be encoded as URLs, which is the essence of the REST style. Yep, that's why I asked, because the context suggested this is what you meant, but the words suggested a more client side focus. Sounds like a sensible approach. And I'd expect to see a browser based client alongside other alternatives (though I prefer dedicated clients to browser based ones, a client in a browser has its uses). > > BTW, another benefit of implementing things as web services is that things like user authentication and access control can often be implemented conveniently in the web server software. They also sidestep a lot of potential firewall hassles. Yep. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com |