#rest on irc.freenode.net 2011-11-10 (txt)

[00:21] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) left #rest.
[01:37] f00li5h (~f00li5h@unaffiliated/f00li5h) joined #rest.
[03:15] <mikekelly> *sigh*
[03:16] <mikekelly> mamund: are you following this ?
[03:17] <mikekelly> I would really like you or someone to give another perspective
[03:17] <mikekelly> (btw I'm talking about the latest rest-discuss thread)
[03:21] Hakon|mbp (~hakon1@158.222.202.84.customer.cdi.no) joined #rest.
[03:30] ssedano (~ssedano@unaffiliated/ssedano) left irc: Quit: WeeChat 0.3.4
[04:15] DracoBlue1 (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) joined #rest.
[04:51] DracoBlue1 (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) left #rest.
[05:03] bigbluehat (~bigblueha@adsl-74-177-125-236.gsp.bellsouth.net) joined #rest.
[05:40] ivanfi (~ivanfi@62.159.77.167) joined #rest.
[06:04] <darrel> Constraining the range of the radius parameter using XForms is just a way of using Xforms to do code download of validation logic. To me it has nothing to do with the mechanics of how you activate that link.
[06:05] <darrel> I do get his point about href being URIs and URI templates not being URIs though. I think that is an unfotunate decision by the writers of the URI template spec.
[06:07] tomayac_ (~tomayac@213.61.101.1) joined #rest.
[06:07] <Ngarthl> i think its a good idea, as you cannot dereference a template.
[06:18] KevBurnsJr (~kevburnsj@c-76-126-10-63.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #rest.
[06:19] grove (~grove@aggw006.cappelendamm.no) left irc: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
[06:24] ssedano (~ssedano@unaffiliated/ssedano) joined #rest.
[06:37] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) joined #rest.
[06:41] DracoBlue1 (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) joined #rest.
[06:44] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 258 seconds
[06:45] mhausenblas (~mhausenbl@wlan-nat.fwgal01.deri.ie) joined #rest.
[06:53] mamund is in da howz
[06:54] <mamund> mikekelly: which thread are you talking about; the one w/ bowman?
[07:03] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) joined #rest.
[07:04] DracoBlue1 (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
[07:22] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) left #rest.
[07:32] grove (~grove@193.201.9.46.customer.cdi.no) joined #rest.
[07:36] gchristensen (~gchristen@unaffiliated/grahamc) joined #rest.
[07:36] grahamc (~gchristen@173-166-174-177-washingtondc.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) joined #rest.
[07:36] gchristensen (~gchristen@unaffiliated/grahamc) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer
[07:52] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) joined #rest.
[08:00] <mikekelly> mamund: indeed
[08:00] <mikekelly> happy to see that guy came back and basically confirmed my hypothesis.
[08:01] <mamund> well, not really following the bowman thread. i have him blocked so i don't see parts of the convo
[08:03] grove_ (~grove@aggw006.cappelendamm.no) joined #rest.
[08:04] <mikekelly> lol
[08:06] grove (~grove@193.201.9.46.customer.cdi.no) left irc: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
[08:06] grove_ -> grove
[08:07] <mikekelly> mamund: I claimed that APIs aren't self-documenting to machines
[08:08] <mikekelly> and ended up qualifying it as this:
[08:08] <mikekelly> To me, self-documenting means clients interact with the application by
[08:08] <mikekelly> intuitively comprehending the semantics and controls they are
[08:08] <mikekelly> presented with as they are proceeding through the application. So the
[08:08] <mikekelly> question is; are machine clients capable of a level of intuitive
[08:08] <mikekelly> comprehension to make these more complex form controls worth pursuing?
[08:08] <mikekelly> I'm not sure they are.
[08:09] <mikekelly> does that make sense or am I totally miscomprehending what self-documenting means ?
[08:11] <mamund> why introduce intuition here at all?
[08:12] dreinull (dreieins@217.18.70.225) left irc: Read error: Operation timed out
[08:15] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) joined #rest.
[08:17] <mikekelly> mamund: isn't that what documentation does ?
[08:17] <mamund> i don't think so
[08:17] <mikekelly> it infers semantics by appealing to your intuition
[08:17] <mamund> at least my aim in documenting is not to introduce intuition'
[08:17] <mamund> maybe we have deiff meanings for this word?
[08:17] <mikekelly> i.e. if I see a green button with an arrow that says checkout
[08:18] <mikekelly> my intuition tells me that if I click it, it's going to take me to the checkout for the basket
[08:18] <mamund> ohhh
[08:18] <mamund> you are talking about meaning? understanding?
[08:18] <mamund> i "intuit" it's meaning?
[08:18] <mikekelly> I'm tlaking about the self-documenting nature of html apps
[08:18] <mamund> that kinda thing?
[08:19] <mikekelly> right
[08:19] <mamund> ok, well, i think i understand your use of that word, "intuition" better
[08:19] <mikekelly> self-documenting just means all the inferences are presented with the information
[08:19] <mamund> not sure how this applies to "self-documentating nature"
[08:19] <mamund> ok
[08:19] <mamund> hmm....
[08:19] <mamund> "all inferences..."
[08:19] <mamund> this is that same as iniution?
[08:20] <mikekelly> well inference is what the server is doing
[08:20] <mikekelly> intuition is what you are doing as the client
[08:20] <mikekelly> the server uses a green checkout button to infer a transition to the checkout step
[08:21] <mikekelly> you use your inuition to comprehend that inference as 'documentation' and act accordingly
[08:22] <mamund> inference, intution, etc. these seem so vague to me, guess i am just not able to follow
[08:22] <mikekelly> ok let's ignore my rambling shit for a second.. what does it _actually_ mean ?
[08:22] <mikekelly> self-documenting
[08:22] <mamund> i havfe no clue
[08:22] <mamund> i don't use this term
[08:23] <mamund> who is using it?
[08:23] <mikekelly> guess who
[08:23] <mamund> LOL?
[08:23] <mamund> bowman?
[08:23] <mikekelly> apparently if you use rels to carry the semantics out of band - you produce an endpoint
[08:24] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) left irc: Quit: Leaving.
[08:25] bigbluehat (~bigblueha@adsl-74-177-125-236.gsp.bellsouth.net) left irc: Quit: Leaving.
[08:25] <mikekelly> > > An XForms slider control can delimit
[08:25] <mikekelly> > > the allowable values and declare them to be pixels, resulting in a
[08:25] <mikekelly> > > self-documenting API instead of an endpoint dependent upon
[08:25] <mikekelly> > > out-of-band knowledge.
[08:25] <mamund> again, who is saying all this?
[08:25] <mikekelly> yeah it's bowman obviously
[08:25] <mamund> i can't make much sense of it myself
[08:25] <mikekelly> :P
[08:25] <mamund> whatever
[08:25] <mikekelly> oh ok cool it's not just me.
[08:25] <mamund> again, i've gone to some lengths to shield myself from this kind of talk and now...
[08:26] <mamund> you go dragging it in here!<g>
[08:26] <mikekelly> lol.
[08:26] <mamund> ROFL
[08:26] <mikekelly> I just want some help
[08:26] <mamund> seriously
[08:26] <mamund> i just walk away
[08:26] <mamund> that's me
[08:26] <mamund> could be he's got some really good stuff in there somewhere...
[08:26] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) joined #rest.
[08:26] <mikekelly> yeah this forms thing really pisses me off though
[08:26] <mamund> i can't seem to find it
[08:26] <mamund> yep, i see that
[08:27] <mikekelly> there's a bunch of people that will read this crap and blindly follow shit advice
[08:27] <mamund> kinda nice to know i can flip your button pretty easily<g>
[08:27] <mamund> oh yeah
[08:28] <mikekelly> anyway I think I've made my point pretty clearly now
[08:28] <mikekelly> The question is not whether machines can or can't interact with
[08:28] <mikekelly> form-like controls, they can, it's whether doing so is worth the
[08:28] <mikekelly> effort or is prohibitively complex.
[08:28] <mikekelly> I guess keeping consumption of your application down by making it both
[08:28] <mikekelly> theoretically 'pure' and prohibitively complex is one way of dealing
[08:28] <mikekelly> with a scalability challenge.
[08:28] mhausenblas (~mhausenbl@wlan-nat.fwgal01.deri.ie) left irc: Quit: brb
[08:28] <mamund> "it's whether doing so is worth the effort"
[08:28] <mamund> bingo
[08:28] <mamund> this is, IMO, the _entire_ point.
[08:29] <mikekelly> what bugs me is that nobody who insists that forms are worth it
[08:29] <mikekelly> actually bothers to demonstrate this
[08:29] <mikekelly> they just show it working in one given situation
[08:29] <mikekelly> and maybe throw up a second slide showing how the form might change
[08:29] <mamund> well, how would someone demonstrate "it is worth the effort"?
[08:30] <mikekelly> or some trivial change that makes no difference
[08:30] <mikekelly> like renaming a field or some crap like that
[08:32] <mikekelly> mamund: by clearly illustrating a valuable change in behaviour that the server can make without disturbing the clients
[08:33] <mikekelly> which _couldn't_ be done with a rel
[08:33] <mamund> oh......
[08:34] <mikekelly> if you have to write 1000 lines of beysien AI to get it to work I'm not interested, either
[08:34] <darrel> mikekelly: Maybe you should demonstrate how you can deal with change effectively just using a rel. Show 'em the right way!
[08:34] <mamund> darrel: +1
[08:34] <mikekelly> darrel: mnot pretty much did that in that blog post
[08:34] <mamund> mikekelly: -1
[08:38] <mamund> mikekelly: your criteria "by clearly...."
[08:39] <mamund> can that be demonstrated by _any_ arrangment of in/out of band arch?
[08:39] <mamund> and why introduce rels into it?
[08:40] <mamund> IOW, are you making some assertion about rels?...
[08:40] <mamund> (i.e. "the only way to make a valuable change in behavior is to introduce a new rel")
[08:40] dreinull (dreieins@217.18.70.225) joined #rest.
[08:40] <mikekelly> no that's my point
[08:40] <mikekelly> it's not the only way
[08:40] <mamund> and is this challenge for both M2H and M2M or only M2M?
[08:41] <mikekelly> it's just the only way which makes sense in a m2m scnario
[08:41] <mamund> ok, this assertion captures you POV:
[08:41] <mamund> "the only to make a valuable change in behavior in an M2M scenario is by introducing a new rel"
[08:42] <mamund> correct?
[08:42] <mikekelly> not exaclty
[08:42] <mamund> ok
[08:43] <mikekelly> "the most cost effective way to make a valuable change in behaviour in a m2m schenario is to introduce a new rel"
[08:43] <mamund> and how is "most cost effective" determined?
[08:44] <mamund> (i've not even started on "valuable"<g>)
[08:44] <mikekelly> some metric of complexity on the client side
[08:44] <mamund> hmmmm
[08:44] <mamund> interesting.
[08:44] <mamund> so the server doesn't play into this "cost effecitve" thing at all, just the client?
[08:45] <mikekelly> right
[08:45] <mamund> huh
[08:45] <mamund> and what is that metric?
[08:45] <mamund> LOC?
[08:45] <mikekelly> maybe
[08:45] <mamund> huh
[08:45] <mamund> well, keep me posted on that one
[08:46] <mikekelly> ok 2 seconds
[08:46] <mikekelly> Dynamically communicating constraints on allowable values for expansions in a declarative way is sure an interesting problem.
[08:46] <mamund> i've heard/seen subbu talk lately on the importance of selecting for "ilities" instead of "blindly adopting" an arch (i.e. REST)
[08:46] <mikekelly> For m2m interactions, one challenge is that the more stuff we try to communicate dynamically, the more client programs become difficult to implement. So we probably all have to find a good tradeoff depending on our particular contexts. For example, in my current project I have considered using XForms for my hypermedia controls, but it would have been too much complex for the teams in charge of implementing clients.
[08:46] <mamund> i've yet to see helpful metrics and processes for measuring thes things.
[08:47] <mikekelly> that quote is the dude who started the thread that ended up with this convo about forms
[08:47] <mamund> yes, i saw that
[08:47] <mamund> lots of assumptions and vagueness there. i don't doubt his experience, but i have no way to quantify it in a repeatable way.
[08:50] <whartung> Daytime everyone
[08:51] <mamund> mikekelly: essentially, i understand you POV as the following:
[08:53] wav1 (~Adium@cpe-70-112-49-11.austin.res.rr.com) joined #rest.
[08:54] <mamund> it is better to hard code clients to static, pre-determined knowledge about possible payloads to send to the server than it is to....
[08:55] <mamund> harde code clients to be able to recognize and parse possible payload hints (forms) within the server responses.
[08:55] <mikekelly> bugger about with stuff that won't make any appreciable difference a servers ability to herd their clients
[08:56] <mikekelly> mamund: pretty much, hyup
[08:56] <mamund> IOW, even in cases where the actual values passed back are the same, it's better to hard-code the lcient.
[08:57] <mikekelly> it's not necessarily better
[08:57] <mamund> ok?
[08:57] <mikekelly> it's just.. enough.
[08:57] <mamund> ok
[08:58] <mikekelly> you could slay a chicken 5 seconds before you prepare it to cook
[08:58] <mikekelly> or you could just kill it outside and put it in the fridge
[08:58] <mikekelly> that analogy is pretty weird
[08:58] <mikekelly> not sure why I picked that
[09:00] <mamund> squicky
[09:03] <mikekelly> using rel's is definitely less dynamic - so it's not 'better'
[09:04] <mikekelly> forms are like buying gold plated nappies for a baby
[09:05] Hakon|mbp (~hakon1@158.222.202.84.customer.cdi.no) left irc: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
[09:05] <mikekelly> there you go - that's a much better analogy
[09:13] tomayac_ (~tomayac@213.61.101.1) left irc: Quit: tomayac_
[09:18] <mikekelly> ok I have an even better one
[09:18] <mikekelly> say you were really desparate for cash
[09:19] <mikekelly> and there was an old woman in front of you with $100 and a huge kick-boxing dude with $200
[09:19] <mikekelly> you would totally mug the old woman right?
[09:19] <mikekelly> I did
[09:19] <mikekelly> would.
[09:19] <mikekelly> I would.
[09:22] <mamund> sorry, was called away
[09:23] <mamund> "I did. would. I would" - best lines of the day!
[09:24] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 248 seconds
[09:25] <whartung> When did mugging kick boxers become RESTful?
[09:27] DracoBlue (~Adium@ip-vlan-obckunde-02-217-66-60-14.pixelpark.net) left irc: Quit: Leaving.
[09:28] <darrel> Ok, I think I want to make a proposal for a new http method "SAFEPOST". Who's with me?
[09:29] <whartung> what does it do?
[09:29] <darrel> for those times when cramming the input parameters into the query string just isn't the right thing to do.
[09:30] <darrel> It's a GET with a body.
[09:30] mamund whacks darrel w/ a trout
[09:30] darrel ow, what was that for?
[09:31] <mamund> SAFEPOST
[09:31] <darrel> I think it is a great idea. :-)
[09:31] mamund whacks darrel w/ a trout
[09:32] <mamund> :)
[09:32] <darrel> when you want to POST an image to an processing resource that is going to resize the image.
[09:32] <darrel> It's safe, it's idempotent, but it doesn't fit in the query string.
[09:32] <whartung> so SAFEPOST is supposed to be an idempotent POST?
[09:32] <whartung> to what end?
[09:32] Wombert (~Wombert@dslb-092-075-019-231.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #rest.
[09:32] <whartung> so a proxy can cache it?
[09:33] <darrel> No. because the input parameters dont fit on the query string.
[09:34] <darrel> another example. A complex search form with lots of criteria.
[09:35] <darrel> An image recognition resource.
[09:35] <fu-manchu> I find a complex search form with lots of criteria is a design smell in itself
[09:36] <mikekelly> I use wakka now so this doesn't concern me.
[09:36] <darrel> fu-manchu: Sometimes customers like that smell.
[09:37] <darrel> mamund: Where's that trout, someone needs a whacka.
[09:37] <mikekelly> ha
[09:37] <mamund> ROFL
[09:38] <fu-manchu> customers who like that smell probably don't have a refined enough palate to care whether "POST" is preceded by "SAFE"
[09:38] <whartung> no, what's the drive to make the POST idempotent
[09:40] <darrel> whartung: I have intermediaries that would like to know if a request is safe or not. I want to log unssafe requests.
[09:40] <whartung> intermediaries?
[09:41] <darrel> ok, singular. Intermediary. :-)
[09:41] <whartung> Associates? Your posse? Men in Black?
[09:41] <darrel> Also, I have a "smoke test" type of routine that exercises the client application and I don't want to make unsafe requests.
[10:04] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) joined #rest.
[10:18] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
[10:22] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) joined #rest.
[10:31] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 260 seconds
[10:45] <wav1> might be a stupid question here: is ssl stateful? if so, is this against the stateless communication constraint? was thinking about this while reading this link: http://palisade.plynt.com/issues/2006Dec/quiz/?show=ans
[10:59] <whartung> yes ssl is stateful
[10:59] <whartung> well
[10:59] <whartung> no I guess not
[10:59] <whartung> but its really expensive tearing the comm channel up and down
[11:01] <wav1> well that link says its stateful. but i have a hard time reconciling that with REST. its not listed as a 'mismatch' in the mistmatch section of http to rest in the paper
[11:03] <whartung> no, it's not
[11:03] <whartung> because it's really below the layer that REST operaties at
[11:03] <whartung> it operates below HTTP
[11:03] <whartung> and while its techinally stateful, semantically it's not
[11:04] <whartung> its like REST over a VPN. The VPN is stateful, but the transcation on top of it is not
[11:05] <wav1> ok so like that links says first the tcp handshake, then the ssl handshake, then http inside of that
[11:05] <wav1> but like you say the keys etc are outside of http
[11:07] <whartung> yes
[11:07] <whartung> if the ssl is torn down between http transcation, HTTP doesn't care
[11:08] <wav1> ok that makes more sense
[11:41] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) joined #rest.
[11:47] sbanwart (~sbanwart@h175.78.189.173.dynamic.ip.windstream.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
[11:58] <Wombert> hah
[11:59] <Wombert> interesting problem someone who attended one of my talks sent me
[11:59] <Wombert> he wants to provide access to resources (e.g. an image), but protect the resources with a CAPTCHA
[11:59] <Wombert> I wonder what the best and most RESTful way to do that would be
[12:00] <Wombert> my first instinct is to return a redirect pointing to a temporary resource that contains a link to the image (so there is still an association for the client as well) and a form for the captcha
[12:01] <Wombert> submitting that form would return the temp resource again if the input was invalid, or just return to the image (at another, different, temporary URL probably) if the input was valid
[12:01] <Wombert> anyone got a better idea?
[12:08] mogsie (~mogsie@62.101.198.35) left irc: Ping timeout: 260 seconds
[12:20] darrel (~darrelmil@bas3-montreal50-2925371499.dsl.bell.ca) left #rest.
[12:23] mogsie (~mogsie@62.101.198.35) joined #rest.
[12:47] grahamc (~gchristen@173-166-174-177-washingtondc.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) left irc: Quit: Leaving...
[12:48] gchristensen (~gchristen@unaffiliated/grahamc) joined #rest.
[12:49] gchristensen (~gchristen@unaffiliated/grahamc) left irc: Client Quit
[12:50] Wombert (~Wombert@dslb-092-075-019-231.pools.arcor-ip.net) left irc: Quit: Wombert
[13:08] Hakon|mbp (~hakon1@158.222.202.84.customer.cdi.no) joined #rest.
[14:05] wav1 (~Adium@cpe-70-112-49-11.austin.res.rr.com) left irc: Quit: Leaving.
[14:25] talios (~amrk@akl.smx.co.nz) joined #rest.
[14:38] grove_ (~grove@193.201.9.46.customer.cdi.no) joined #rest.
[14:41] grove (~grove@aggw006.cappelendamm.no) left irc: Ping timeout: 258 seconds
[14:41] grove_ -> grove
[14:44] talios (~amrk@akl.smx.co.nz) left irc: Quit: Bye!
[14:56] grove (~grove@193.201.9.46.customer.cdi.no) left irc: Quit: grove
[15:27] mamund is all done for the day, bye!
[15:28] gchristensen (~gchristen@unaffiliated/grahamc) joined #rest.
[16:25] L0cky (Darren@cpc2-seac21-2-0-cust514.7-2.cable.virginmedia.com) joined #rest.
[16:34] KevBurnsJr_ (~KevBurnsJ@50.0.103.39) joined #rest.
[17:07] fu-manchu (~fumanchu@adsl-99-30-180-185.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
[17:07] gchristensen (~gchristen@unaffiliated/grahamc) left irc: Quit: Leaving...
[17:11] NOKAH (~hakon1@158.222.202.84.customer.cdi.no) joined #rest.
[17:15] Hakon|mbp (~hakon1@158.222.202.84.customer.cdi.no) left irc: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
[17:23] technoweenie (~technowee@host-86-220-9-69.midco.net) left irc: Remote host closed the connection
[18:32] sbanwart (~sbanwart@99-177-126-136.lightspeed.bcvloh.sbcglobal.net) joined #rest.
[18:38] fu-manchu (~fumanchu@75-57-4-116.lightspeed.sndgca.sbcglobal.net) joined #rest.
[18:42] Wombert (~Wombert@dslb-092-075-019-231.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #rest.
[18:46] L0cky (Darren@cpc2-seac21-2-0-cust514.7-2.cable.virginmedia.com) left irc:
[19:13] sbanwart (~sbanwart@99-177-126-136.lightspeed.bcvloh.sbcglobal.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 248 seconds
[19:17] Wombert (~Wombert@dslb-092-075-019-231.pools.arcor-ip.net) left irc: Quit: Wombert
[19:18] Wombert (~Wombert@dslb-092-075-019-231.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #rest.
[19:22] fu-manchu (~fumanchu@75-57-4-116.lightspeed.sndgca.sbcglobal.net) left irc: Ping timeout: 255 seconds
[20:19] fu-manchu (~fumanchu@adsl-99-30-180-185.dsl.sfldmi.sbcglobal.net) joined #rest.
[20:19] f00li5h (~f00li5h@unaffiliated/f00li5h) left irc: Read error: Connection reset by peer
[20:20] f00li5h (~f00li5h@unaffiliated/f00li5h) joined #rest.
[21:21] grove (~grove@193.201.9.46.customer.cdi.no) joined #rest.
[21:29] grove (~grove@193.201.9.46.customer.cdi.no) left irc: Quit: grove
[22:11] grove (~grove@aggw006.cappelendamm.no) joined #rest.
[22:36] quest88 (~quest88@c-98-207-205-137.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #rest.
[23:02] tomayac_ (~tomayac@213.61.101.1) joined #rest.
[23:02] tomayac_ (~tomayac@213.61.101.1) left irc: Client Quit
[00:00] --- Fri Nov 11 2011