However, what really turned me off was his usage of the word "RESTful". For him, it seemed to be a way to describe the inner workings of his application, like, say, "separation of concerns". RoR guys are generally not the most clueless people, but nobody in the audience challenged him about this. It seemed to be the generally accepted usage of the term in the Rails community.
This made me think that DHH and Rails have done two things to REST:
- First, they greatly help to evangelize the term "RESTful"
- Second, they hijacked the meaning of the term and changed it from "architectural style" to "application architecture"
I believe that a part of the misunderstanding is that the term "architectural style" (as opposed to "architecture") is not understood well enough in the development community. However, Roy Fielding has written a brilliant post about that difference between an architectural style and an architecture: "On Software Architecture".
Web implementations are not equivalent to Web architecture and Web architecture is not equivalent to the REST style.RESTful-Rails-people please have a look at that post.
PS: Ted Neward had some predictions for 2009 (as I silently predicted, nobody cared that I did not make any predictions for 2009), one of them just came to my mind (emphasis mine):
Roy Fielding will officially disown most of the "REST"ful authors and software packages available. Nobody will care--or worse, somebody looking to make a name for themselves will proclaim that Roy "doesn't really understand REST". And they'll be right--Roy doesn't understand what they consider to be REST, and the fact that he created the term will be of no importance anymore. Being "REST"ful will equate to "I did it myself!", complete with expectations of a gold star and a lollipop.