On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Any further discussion here? I would like to start implementing more > > of the REST APIs, as it is foundational for the entire angular > > architecture. > > > > My understanding from Matt is that the current apis in trunk are > > mostly proof of concept - they are not tested and much of the > > functionality is just stubbed. Are any of the rest api implementations > > in the code base a good working example? Is there other documentation > > we can reference? > > > > I've been working on the People resource as a "reference" of how I'd like > to see them done but it's still a work in progress. I need to go back and > pull out the JSONView stuff and reimplement the "fields" concept. Couple of > notes: > > - Object representations should be as flat as possible > and separate requests should be made to nested resources to get nested > details (i.e. if you have regions and regions/1/regionwidgets, the regions > representation should not contain an array of regionwidgets) > I am concerned about the round trips to support this when rendering the page. With any page that has a sufficient number of gadgets, adding to the number of requests becomes problematic. > - All methods should return standard HTTP codes. We should document this > further on the wiki to make sure we all do the same way. > - We won't accept partial updates with PUT, we will eventually add PATCH > to support that in the future > - If the "fields" query attribute isn't included in a GET then all fields > are returned. > - What is the full meta structure we want to return? > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Matt Franklin < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> +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 > > > > > > Well the development in trunk can continue to happen on /rest. Angular > > > (aka the consuming client for most of these apis) is already happening > > > in a branch, so those changes can be treated as a rip / replace > > > easily. > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > 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 > > > > > > My understanding is that PUT should always be a full object replace. A > > > quick search returns the suggestion to use PATCH, or to use POST to a > > > subresource with a 303 response. > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > 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. > > >> > > > > > > Fair enough. In this case I guess I would just be looking for > > > consistency - will associations be infinitely nest-able. If not, what > > > is the rule to determine where we support more or less deeply nested > > > associations. > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >>> > 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? > > >>> > > > > > > We could possibly achieve the same with HTTP headers. I prefer the > > > object approach for clarity, since custom http headers are less > > > accessible or discoverable than object structure. I get your point, > > > but I see the wrapped object approach used commonly in major apis. If > > > it's clearly documented and used consistently across the entire api I > > > don't really see an issue. > > > > > >>> > > > >>> > 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. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > I don't really know what the implementation looks like. If you allow > > > field filtering only on properties and deliver only properties (i.e. > > > no nested objects / associations) then I would assume it is pretty > > > straightforward. > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > 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? > > >>> > > > >>> > > >
