+1 for every one of Chris' +1s, unless otherwise noted. On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh boy!! :) > > Comments inline > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > As we are starting to look at the rest apis in more detail, I would > > like to discuss and agree upon a consistent interface for our apis. > > We currently have several developers interested in contributing to the > > apis and the angular branch, and I would like to solidify the > > interface, methods, response format, etc so that we can be on the same > > page going forward. If we can agree on an api virtualization layer > > then we should be able to build against it on the server and on the > > angular application in parallel. > > > > I'll start with a proposal and look for feedback to iterate from there. > > > > 1. API root url > > > > "/api". Drop support for rpc api, move from /api/rest to just /api. > > > > +1 - the only downside of this is that it prohibits implementing over time > and requires a rip/replace approach of the whole system > > > > > 2. Media Types > > > > Initially support only application/json. We can revisit > > application/xml as a nice-to-have. > > > > +1 > > > > > 3. HTTP Methods > > > > GET, PUT, POST, DELETE > > > > +1 (We also need to decide if PUT can handle partial updates) > I say not. That is what PATCH is for, once everything supports it: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789 > > > > > 4. Status Codes > > > > 200, 201, 400, 401, 403, 404, 500 > > > > +1 > > > > > 5. URL formats > > > > Use plural nouns (pages, people, widgets). Do not nest associations > > beyond one level deep. For example: > > /pages/1/regions (ok) > > /pages/1/regions/2/regionwidgets (not ok) > > /regions/2/regionwidgets (ok) > > > > I'm not a fan of this requirement. Your example is the exact reason I'm not > a fan actually. In all reality, regions don't mean anything outside a page, > and region widgets don't mean anything outside of a region. Yes, they have > IDs, but in reality, those IDs should be subordinate to the parent (so > there should be nothing wrong with having Page 1 with regions [1,2] and > Page 2 with regions [1,2]). I understand that's not how the DB works today > but it's what makes the most logical sense. > I agree with Chris. We should not limit to a single level. That is counter to a few REST web service principles. > > > > 6. Response formats > > > > 6a. Wrap all responses in an object. All valid (200) responses should > > be wrapped in an object that includes a "meta" object for metadata, > > and a "data" object for the response body. This allows us to capture > > or extend metadata associated with a response as needed. Any metadata > > properties should be standardized. > > > > Example: > > > > GET /people > > { > > meta: {count: 253, limit: 10, offset: 0, ...} > > data: [ {id: 1, name: 'canonical', ...}, ... ] > > } > > > > GET /people/1 > > { > > meta: { ... } > > data: {id:1, name: 'canonical', ...} > > } > > > > This really complicates a couple things, first, it means the GET != PUT > since the GET will include the meta data. Can we achieve this same result > with HTTP Headers? > > > > > 6b. Error objects. In the case of an error, the correct error code > > should be returned. In addition, an error object should be returned > > with a standardized format. Ideally including a verbose, > > human-readable error message for developers, and an internationalized > > readable error message for display to end users. > > > > GET /people/25 > > 401 > > { > > developerMessage: 'Unauthorized. Access to this resource requires > > authentication', > > userMessage: 'Please login', > > stackTrace: ... > > } > > > > +1 > > > > > 6c. Partial responses. By default all responses, whether a list or > > individual resource, should return a full representation of the > > resources (not including security constraints). All endpoints should > > support the query string parameter "fields", which accepts a comma > > delimited list of fields to build a partial response. > > > > Hmmm.....what's funny (except for the wasted work) is this is how I > originally built the people resource. I changed it because the "fields" > approach gets almost impossible to manage with nested elements (at least in > Java - rewrite in Ruby anyone??). I'm open to suggestions though. I guess > we could also make a rule that the data objects shouldn't have nested > elements but that is a tough rule. > I think the fields approach makes sense long-term; but, it is not critical. > > > > > GET /people/1 > > { > > meta: { ... }, > > data: { id: 1, name: 'canonical', email: '[email protected]', ... } > > } > > > > GET /people/1?fields=id,name > > { > > meta: { ... }, > > data: { id: 1, name: 'canonical' } > > } > > > > 6d. Pagination. All requests that return a list should be paginated. > > The query string parameters "limit" and "offset" should be used for > > pagination. On any request in which either parameter is not set, they > > should default to 10 and 0 respectively. > > > > +1 > > > > > 6e. Use camelCase for properties. > > > > +1 > > > > > 7. Endpoints. > > > > 7a. Standard endpoints: there should be standard CRUD endpoints to > > support each rave resource. In other words, any operation possible in > > rave should be possible through a rest api action. > > > > +1 > > > > > 7b. Special endpoints. In the case of certain client needs, we can > > implement a small number of special endpoints to fulfill a specific > > role. The primary case in point is retrieving a page for render, which > > returns a page, its regions, its regionWidgets, and their render data. > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > Ok, I think that's it. This is meant as a proposal only - we are > > looking for feedback to go forward. Thoughts? > > >
