On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> >> I see that rule applying to the "standard" rest endpoints for crud >> operations on resources. We will have some number of special endpoints >> to support frequently used operations of clients. The major example >> there is the page / pages for render endpoint, which will include the >> nested regions, regionwidgets, and their rpc tokens, etc. >> > > +1
So my thought is that we have the standard crud endpoints for all individual resources. For frequently-used read operations in which we need composite data sets we will have a small number of custom endpoints to serve that data. Those are read-only endpoints, they will not support create / update / delete operations. At a time when we need one of our composite data views, such as on a page load, the client will make a request and get the composite data - page, regions, regionwidgets and so on. The client can decompose those into the individual component resources which have corresponding angular $resource services, and which talk to the standard endpoints to support further crud operations on them. Make sense / thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> - 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? >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> >> >>
