I’ve updated the document [1] to reflect the suggestions (no warnings
yet).
Also, there’s another change that makes "include-results" and the
"mode"
more independent. When including results in an async request, the final
response from the status endpoint will include the results. Otherwise
the
final response from the status endpoint will contain a handle.
Please check the doc and tell me what you think.
Cheers,
Till
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/New+HTTP+API+Design
On 15 Apr 2016, at 17:32, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
Till,
All the comments make sense to me except for warnings. I was
struggling to remember anything in Asterix, which would resemble the
warnings described by you.
As a future extension we could support that, but in this document I
was trying to reflect current state of Asterix functionality + some
extensions which were on horizon for a long time and are really
needed.
On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:37, Till Westmann <ti...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Ildar,
thanks for writing all of this up!
A few comments/proposals:
- Request:
- For the "format" parameter, I think that it would be nice to
support
both, the parameter and the Accept header, as it’s sometimes
much more
convenient to pass a parameter than a HTTP header. However, I
think that
the HTTP header should override the parameter if they conflict.
- "execute-query" could be renamed to "execute-statement" to be
consistent
with the "statement" parameter.
- Response:
- I'm wondering if "results" should be able to get a URI for the
handle or
if we should have another field in the response for that (e.g.
"handle"). The advantage of 2 fields would be that the consumer
knows
how to parse each field (either as a URI or as an array).
- Inside of the "metrics" object I would only expect simple numbers.
For
the plans we could have another top-level field ("plan"?) an
object that
contains the different plans ..
- It would also be nice to add a new top-level field for warnings.
That
could be used to report warnings from the engine that evaluates
the
statement. And it could also be used to report unused parameters
(assuming that the default behavior for a parameter that is passed
in,
but not understood by the server is simply ignored).
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Till
On 14 Apr 2016, at 15:23, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
Hi Devs,
Recently there have been a number of conversations about the future
of our REST (aka HTTP) API. I summarized these discussions in an
outline of the new API design:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/New+HTTP+API+Design
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/New+HTTP+API+Design>.
The need to refactor existing API came from different directions
(and from different people), and is explained in motivation section.
Thus I believe it’s about the time to take an effort and improve
existing API, so that it will not drag us down in the future.
However during the transition step I believe it would be better to
keep exiting API endpoints, so that we would not break people’s
current experimental setup.
It would be good to know feedback from the folks, who have been
contributing to that part of the systems recently.
Best regards,
Ildar
Best regards,
Ildar
