Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Post History
Since you ask if a CMS necessarily must be implemented using all three, the answer clearly becomes a theoretical "no" if a CMS can be implemented with anything less than all three, and a practical ...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Canina
·
2021-11-26T09:44:51Z (almost 3 years ago)
- Since you ask if a CMS *necessarily* must be implemented using all three, the answer clearly becomes a theoretical "no" if a CMS *can* be implemented with anything less than all three, and a practical "no" if a CMS *has* been implemented with anything less than all three.
- [REST](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer#Architectural_constraints) designs have five constraints:
- * Client–server architecture
- * Statelessness
- * Cacheability
- * Layered system
- * Uniform interface
- and optionally
- * Code on demand
Since a [content management system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system) clearly can be implemented in a way that requires client-side state (one CMS product that I have to use at work works that way, at least as far as is visible from the user perspective), therefore violating the requirement of statelessness (on the client side), it is *clearly possible* to implement a CMS in a way that *does not* meet the constraints of a REST architecture.- The answer is therefore: **there can exist a CMS that does not meet all of the requirements of all the terms you list,** as that list includes REST. By your definition of the word "related", they are therefore not "necessarily related".
- Since you ask if a CMS *necessarily* must be implemented using all three, the answer clearly becomes a theoretical "no" if a CMS *can* be implemented with anything less than all three, and a practical "no" if a CMS *has* been implemented with anything less than all three.
- [REST](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer#Architectural_constraints) designs have five constraints:
- * Client–server architecture
- * Statelessness
- * Cacheability
- * Layered system
- * Uniform interface
- and optionally
- * Code on demand
- Since a [content management system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system) clearly can be implemented in a way that requires client-side state (one CMS product that I have to use at work works that way, at least as far as is visible from the user perspective), therefore violating the requirement of statelessness, it is *clearly possible* to implement a CMS in a way that *does not* meet the constraints of a REST architecture.
- The answer is therefore: **there can exist a CMS that does not meet all of the requirements of all the terms you list,** as that list includes REST. By your definition of the word "related", they are therefore not "necessarily related".
#1: Initial revision
by
Canina
·
2021-11-26T08:33:33Z (almost 3 years ago)
Since you ask if a CMS *necessarily* must be implemented using all three, the answer clearly becomes a theoretical "no" if a CMS *can* be implemented with anything less than all three, and a practical "no" if a CMS *has* been implemented with anything less than all three. [REST](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer#Architectural_constraints) designs have five constraints: * Client–server architecture * Statelessness * Cacheability * Layered system * Uniform interface and optionally * Code on demand Since a [content management system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system) clearly can be implemented in a way that requires client-side state (one CMS product that I have to use at work works that way, at least as far as is visible from the user perspective), therefore violating the requirement of statelessness (on the client side), it is *clearly possible* to implement a CMS in a way that *does not* meet the constraints of a REST architecture. The answer is therefore: **there can exist a CMS that does not meet all of the requirements of all the terms you list,** as that list includes REST. By your definition of the word "related", they are therefore not "necessarily related".