Well, I'm glad you can put together an RPC api that quick, but the reason REST is so ubiquitous and why arguing against it is going to make you the subject of a witch hunt is because it's so easy to consume. Your API is useless if people don't want to use it.
But like the article mentioned, clients using REST are used to dealing with wrappers written for their language anyway. They'd prefer to not bother with URLs, query strings, and MIME types, and simply consume an API in the language that feels natural for them.
You can argue that REST is easier to debug for developers, but nothing makes XML-RPC or binary protocols inherently _less_ easier to debug. It depends on the platform and library you're using.
I wholeheartedly agree with the article. Well done.
Or in the case of SOAP, simply cannot work out how to consume it. In at least one case there was a SOAP service offered and I had a good quality SOAP client library in a popular language and I couldn't work out how to make a single working request.
Not all APIs are public though. You could picking a communication protocol among services within a single technical organization. In that case you can decide to train everybody to use Thrift, for example, if the pros are strong enough.
Are you assuming REST is easier than RPC to develop and/or consume?
After moving to a REST based API there were endless meetings between co-workers of what is and isn't a good REST url. Our clients often come to us with dumb mistakes. Unlike RPC where the parameters go in a single place. With REST the parameters are spread across the verb, url, header, query param, etc..
I think they were suggesting that it was more difficult to design/develop (as per your example), but easier to consume if designed/developed well, and that this was the proper tradeoff.
Yes, I'm assuming REST is easier because of tools like curl, postman and even the major browsers with HTTP GET and great dev tools.
With RPC your consumers probably need to know some coding and even maybe a specific language, a framework or a library.
So yes, for me REST is easier, and I always love to see landing pages like this one - https://freegeoip.net - where the client can test the API in a few seconds by copying an example to its browser address line. This is a simple use case, but I hope you get my meaning.
I don't really understand the debate here regarding tooling. REST, SOAP and RPC are all ways to define/codify the API and the parameters. It all goes over HTTP at the end. So Curl, postman and all other HTTP-enabling tools/libraries can be used.
SOAP even has handy discovery tools that frameworks can consume and construct entire APIs in most popular languages.
It's just that no-one uses SOAP from a browser because XML is a royal PITA to write in JS. I would assume it's because all JS developers are too-busy writing more libraries-for and layers-over JSON.
It's precisely the 'simple' examples which don't address any of the complexities in the original article. read-only properties in a resource being PUT back, for example. You're not having to deal with that with simple read-only services like freegeoip.
