Avoid REST Implementation Failure

Poorly implemented REST strategies cost companies millions to maintain and decommission. Each failed REST implementation moves REST further down the path to obsolescence.  To avoid REST implementation failure, management and developers must return to REST philosophy basics.

The Representational State Transfer (REST) is an architectural style. REST exploits the benefits and constraints of the web by identifying system restrictive elements that differentiate the design space. Additionally, REST allows the web to stay in harmony with corporate systems.

REST architecture emphasizes system constraints and de-emphasizes creativity or vision. System designers avoid precarious situations by designing, a REST philosophy-based implementation.

Management may want to monetize software assets by exposing internally developed infrastructure as API‘s (Application Programming Interface).  The challenge is to provide an interface that allows developers the creative freedom to generate new applications from a company’s infrastructure elements.

An additional challenge for system architects is to help executive decision makers understand how competitors improperly using REST is not a path to follow.

To use a baker analogy⎯a baker needs different ingredients to bake different kinds of pies. A baker cannot use a pre-baked pie to create other pies.

Ultimately, a better strategy gives a developer some tools and allows the developer to combine those tools with other tools to create a new product. A developer should not be given a finished product and asked to create something new from the finished product.

From a REST architect perspective, the value of resources and controllers comes from thinking in the abstract. Abstract thinking about the parts (instead of the whole) create value for the developers you are trying to attract.

For example, if a telecommunication company wants to gain developer adoption, decision makers would align assets so one asset alone would not accomplish much. However, one asset combined with other assets would create something interesting and viable.

As a developer, you should imagine mixing and matching various resources forming new software products, or incorporating resources into another product. To focus on parts instead of predetermined concepts allows a developer’s imagination to flourish.

When each infrastructure asset independently evolves and gains a consistent interface the benefit to a company lies in monetizing exposed assets to external developers.

Booker Showers