This allows a client to use a reduced (http/1.0) subset of features in making a normal http/1.1 request, while at the same time indicating to the recipient that it is capable of supporting full http/1.1 communication. In other words, it provides a tentative form of protocol negotiation on the http scale. Each connection on a request/response chain can operate at its best protocol level in spite of the limitations of some clients or servers that are parts of the chain. The intention of the protocol is that the server should always respond with the highest minor version of the protocol it understands within the same major version of the client's request message. The restriction is that the server cannot use those optional features of the higher-level protocol which are forbidden to be sent to such an older-version client. There are no required features of a protocol that cannot be used with all other minor versions within that major version, since that would be an incompatible change and thus require a change in the major version. The only features of http that can depend on a minor version number change are those that are interpreted by immediate neighbors in the communication, because http does not require that the entire request/response chain of intermediary components speak the same version. These rules exist to assist in the deployment of multiple protocol revisions and to prevent the http architects from forgetting that deployment of the protocol is an important aspect of its design.
Dissertation, writing Service for
The developers of http implementations have been conservative in their adoption of proposed enhancements, and thus extensions needed to be proven and subjected to standards review before they could be deployed. Rest was used to identify problems with the existing http implementations, specify an interoperable subset of that protocol as http/1.0 19, analyze proposed extensions for http/1.1 42, and provide motivating rationale for deploying http/1.1. The key problem areas in http that were identified by rest included planning for the deployment of new protocol versions, separating message parsing from http semantics and the underlying transport layer (tcp distinguishing between authoritative and non-authoritative responses, fine-grained control of caching, and various aspects. Rest has also been used to model the performance of Web applications based on http and anticipate the impact of such extensions as persistent connections and content negotiation. Finally, rest has been used to limit the scope of standardized http extensions to those that fit within the architectural model, rather than allowing the applications that misuse http to equally influence the standard. 6.3.1 Extensibility One of the major goals of rest is to support the gradual and fragmented deployment of changes within an already deployed architecture. Http was modified to support that goal through the introduction of versioning requirements and rules for extending each of the protocol's syntax elements. Protocol Versioning http is a family of protocols, distinguished by major and minor version numbers, that share the name primarily because they correspond to the protocol expected when communicating directly with a service based on the "http" url namespace. A connector must obey the constraints placed on the http-version protocol element included in each message. The http-version of a message represents resume the protocol capabilities of the sender and the gross-compatibility (major version number) of the message being sent.
Such embedded user-ids can be used to maintain session state on the server, track user behavior by logging their actions, or carry user preferences across multiple actions (e.g., hyper-G's gateways 84 ). However, by violating rest's constraints, these systems also cause shared caching to become ineffective, reduce server scalability, and result in undesirable effects when a user shares those references with others. Another conflict with the resource self interface of rest occurs when software attempts to treat the web as a distributed file system. Since file systems expose the implementation of their information, tools exist to "mirror" that information across to multiple sites as a means of load balancing and redistributing the content closer to users. However, they can do so only because files have a fixed set of semantics (a named sequence of bytes) that can be duplicated easily. In contrast, attempts to mirror the content of a web server as files will fail because the resource interface does not always match the semantics of a file system, and because both data and metadata are included within, and significant to, the semantics. Web server content can be replicated at remote sites, but only by replicating the entire server mechanism and configuration, or by selectively replicating only those resources with representations known to be static (e.g., cache networks contract with Web sites to replicate specific resource representations. The hypertext Transfer Protocol (http) has a special role in the web architecture as both the primary application-level protocol for communication between Web components and the only protocol designed specifically for the transfer of resource representations. Unlike uri, there were a large number of changes needed in order for http to support the modern Web architecture.
The web doesn't work that way. The web architecture consists of constraints on the communication model between components, based on the role of each component during an application action. This prevents the components from assuming anything beyond the resource abstraction, thus hiding the actual mechanisms on either side of the abstract interface. 6.2.5 rest mismatches in uri like most real-world systems, not all components of the deployed Web architecture obey every constraint present in its architectural design. Rest has been used both as a means to define architectural improvements and to identify architectural mismatches. Mismatches occur when, due to ignorance or oversight, a software implementation is deployed that violates the architectural constraints. While mismatches cannot be avoided in general, it is possible to identify them before they become standardized. Although the uri design matches rest's architectural notion of identifiers, syntax alone is insufficient to force naming authorities story to define their own uri according to the resource model. One form of abuse is to include information that identifies the current user within all of the uri referenced by a hypermedia response representation.
6.2.4 Binding Semantics to uri as mentioned above, a resource can have many identifiers. In other words, there may exist two or more different uri that have equivalent semantics when used to access a server. It is also possible to have two uri that result in the same mechanism being used upon access to the server, and yet those uri identify two different resources because they don't mean the same thing. Semantics are a by-product of the act of assigning resource identifiers and populating those resources with representations. At no time whatsoever do the server or client software need to know or understand the meaning of a uri - they merely act as a conduit through which the creator of a resource (a human naming authority) can associate representations with the semantics identified. In other words, there are no resources on the server; just mechanisms that supply answers across an abstract interface defined by resources. It may seem odd, but this is the essence of what makes the web work across so many different implementations. It is the nature of every engineer to define things in terms of the characteristics of the components that will be used to compose the finished product.
Propel your work on dissertation with a help of written samples
In order to author an existing resource, the list author must first obtain the specific source resource uri: the set of uri that bind to the handler's underlying representation for the target resource. A resource does not always map to a singular file, but all resources that are not static are derived from some other resources, and by following the derivation tree an author can eventually find all of the source resources that must be essay edited in order. These same principles apply to any form of derived representation, whether it be from content negotiation, scripts, servlets, managed configurations, versioning, etc. The resource is not the storage object. The resource is not a mechanism that the server uses to handle the storage object. The resource is a conceptual mapping - the server receives the identifier (which identifies the mapping) and applies it to its current mapping implementation (usually a combination of collection-specific deep tree traversal and/or hash tables) to find the currently responsible handler implementation and the handler.
All of these implementation-specific issues are hidden behind the web interface; their nature cannot be assumed by a client that only has access through the web interface. For example, consider what happens when a web site grows in user base and decides to replace its old Brand X server, based on an xos platform, with a new Apache server running on Freebsd. The disk storage hardware is replaced. The operating system is replaced. The http server is replaced. Perhaps even the method of generating responses for all of the content is replaced. However, what doesn't need to change is the web interface: if designed correctly, the namespace on the new server can mirror that of the old, meaning that from the client's perspective, which only knows about resources and not about how they are implemented, nothing has.
Rest answers that question by defining the things that are manipulated to be representations of the identified resource, rather than the resource itself. An origin server maintains a mapping from resource identifiers to the set of representations corresponding to each resource. A resource is therefore manipulated by transferring representations through the generic interface defined by the resource identifier. Rest's definition of resource derives from the central requirement of the web: independent authoring of interconnected hypertext across multiple trust domains. Forcing the interface definitions to match the interface requirements causes the protocols to seem vague, but that is only because the interface being manipulated is only an interface and not an implementation.
The protocols are specific about the intent of an application action, but the mechanism behind the interface must decide how that intention affects the underlying implementation of the resource mapping to representations. Information hiding is one of the key software engineering principles that motivates the uniform interface of rest. Because a client is restricted to the manipulation of representations rather than directly accessing the implementation of a resource, the implementation can be constructed in whatever form is desired by the naming authority without impacting the clients that may use its representations. In addition, if multiple representations of the resource exist at the time it is accessed, a content selection algorithm can be used to dynamically select a representation that best fits the capabilities of that client. The disadvantage, of course, is that remote authoring of a resource is not as straightforward as remote authoring of a file. 6.2.3 Remote authoring, the challenge of remote authoring via the web's uniform interface is due to the separation between the representation that can be retrieved by a client and the mechanism that might be used on the server to store, generate, or retrieve the content. An individual server may map some part of its namespace to a filesystem, which in turn maps to the equivalent of an inode that can be mapped into a disk location, but those underlying mechanisms provide a means of associating a resource to a set. Many different resources could map to the same representation, while other resources may have no representation mapped at all.
Work on time management
However, this definition proved to be unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, it suggests that the yoga author is identifying the content transferred, which would imply that the identifier should change whenever the content changes. Second, there exist many addresses that corresponded to a service rather than a document - authors may be intending to direct readers to that service, rather than to any specific result from a prior access essay of that service. Finally, there exist addresses that do not correspond to a document at some periods of time, such as when the document does not yet exist or when the address is being used solely for naming, rather than locating, information. The definition of resource in rest is based on a simple premise: identifiers should change as infrequently as possible. Because the web uses embedded identifiers rather than link servers, authors need an identifier that closely matches the semantics they intend by a hypermedia reference, allowing the reference to remain static even though the result of accessing that reference may change over time. Rest accomplishes this by defining a resource to be the semantics of what the author intends to identify, rather than the value corresponding to those semantics at the time the reference is created. It is then left to the author to ensure that the identifier chosen for a reference does indeed identify the intended semantics. Defining resource such that a uri identifies a concept rather than a document leaves us with another question: how does a user access, manipulate, or transfer a concept such that they can get something useful when a hypertext link is selected?
Uri have been known by many names: www addresses, Universal Document Identifiers, Universal Resource Identifiers 15, and heart finally the combination of Uniform Resource locators (URL) 17 and Names (URN) 124. Aside from its name, the uri syntax has remained relatively unchanged since 1992. However, the specification of Web addresses also defines the scope and semantics of what we mean by resource, which has changed since the early web architecture. Rest was used to define the term resource for the uri standard 21, as well as the overall semantics of the generic interface for manipulating resources via their representations. 6.2.1 Redefinition of Resource, the early web architecture defined uri as document identifiers. Authors were instructed to define identifiers in terms of a document's location on the network. Web protocols could then be used to retrieve that document.
authored the revision of the. The first edition of rest was developed between October 1994 and August 1995, primarily as a means for communicating Web concepts as we wrote the http/1.0 specification and the initial http/1.1 proposal. It was iteratively improved over the next five years and applied to various revisions and extensions of the web protocol standards. Rest was originally referred to as the "http object model but that name would often lead to misinterpretation of it as the implementation model of an http server. The name "Representational State Transfer" is intended to evoke an image of how a well-designed Web application behaves: a network of web pages (a virtual state-machine where the user progresses through the application by selecting links (state transitions resulting in the next page (representing the. Rest is not intended to capture all possible uses of the web protocol standards. There are applications of http and uri that do not match the application model of a distributed hypermedia system. The important point, however, is that rest does capture all of those aspects of a distributed hypermedia system that are considered central to the behavioral and performance requirements of the web, such that optimizing behavior within the model will result in optimum behavior within the. In other words, rest is optimized for the common case so that the constraints it applies to the web architecture will also be optimized for the common case. Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) are both the simplest element of the web architecture and the most important.
Each of the about specifications were significantly out of date when compared with Web implementations, mostly due to the rapid evolution of the web after the introduction of the mosaic graphical browser ncsa. Several experimental extensions had been added to http to allow for proxies, but for the most part the protocol assumed a direct connection between the user agent and either an http origin server or a gateway to legacy systems. There was no awareness within the architecture of caching, proxies, or spiders, even though implementations were readily available and running amok. Many other extensions were being proposed for inclusion in the next versions of the protocols. At the same time, there was growing pressure within the industry to standardize on some version, or versions, of the web interface protocols. The W3C was formed by berners-lee 20 to act as a think-tank for Web architecture and to supply the authoring resources needed to write the web standards and reference implementations, but the standardization itself was governed by the Internet Engineering Taskforce. Org and its working groups on uri, http, and html.
Working on a dissertation
Fielding Dissertation: chapter 6: Experience and evaluation. Top, prev, next, since 1994, the rest architectural style has been used to guide the design and development of the architecture for the modern Web. This chapter describes the experience and lessons learned from applying rest while authoring the Internet standards for the hypertext Transfer Protocol (http) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (uri the two specifications that define the generic interface used by all component interactions on the web, as well. As described in Chapter 4, the motivation for developing rest was to create an architectural model for how the web should work, such that it could serve animals as the guiding framework for the web protocol standards. Rest has been applied to describe the desired Web architecture, help identify existing problems, compare alternative solutions, and ensure that protocol extensions would not violate the core constraints that make the web successful. This work was done as part of the Internet Engineering Taskforce (ietf) and World Wide web Consortium (W3C) efforts to define the architectural standards for the web: http, uri, and html. My involvement in the web standards process began in late 1993, while developing the libwww-perl protocol library that served as the client connector interface for momspider. At the time, the web's architecture was described by a set of informal hypertext notes 14, two early introductory papers 12, 13, draft hypertext specifications representing proposed features for the web (some of which had already been implemented and the archive of the public www-talk.