I'm saying that unenforceable contracts, like the "idempotence" of GET requests are no better than an annotation on a method in a conventional RPC IDL.
If fact the latter is better, because it may be somehow enforced by cogen if you code-generate into a language which may, for example, enforce purity or totality.
And the whole story about "REST not being an RPC" or "there is purity/idempotence/whatever in REST because RFC says that GETs are pure/idempotent/whatever" makes very little sense.
At the same time I'm saying that it's total bullshit when someone says that it's not possible to enforce lack of side effects (like in referential transparency) during a remote call.
pshirshov|3 years ago
If fact the latter is better, because it may be somehow enforced by cogen if you code-generate into a language which may, for example, enforce purity or totality.
And the whole story about "REST not being an RPC" or "there is purity/idempotence/whatever in REST because RFC says that GETs are pure/idempotent/whatever" makes very little sense.
At the same time I'm saying that it's total bullshit when someone says that it's not possible to enforce lack of side effects (like in referential transparency) during a remote call.