As you said RESTful is not a standard but brings guidelines of good practices. Which in turn doesn't preclude adding ideas, as long as respecting RESTful approach. So we get from both sides.

Therefore a good schema structure adds to a de-facto standard, once the practice is commonly used.

On 02/02/18 19:11, Duncan Thomas wrote:
So I guess my question here is why is being RESTful good? Sure it's (very, very loosely) a standard, but what are the actual advantages? Standards come and go, what we want most of all is a good quality, easy to use API.

I'm not saying that going RESTful is wrong, but I don't see much discussion about what the advantages are, only about how close we are to implementing it.

On 1 Feb 2018 10:55 pm, "Ed Leafe" < <>> wrote:

    On Jan 18, 2018, at 4:07 AM, TommyLike Hu <
    <>> wrote:

    >    Recently We found an issue related to our OpenStack action
    APIs. We usually expose our OpenStack APIs by registering them to
    our API Gateway (for instance Kong [1]), but it becomes very
    difficult when regarding to action APIs. We can not register and
    control them seperately because them all share the same request
    url which will be used as the identity in the gateway service, not
    say rate limiting and other advanced gateway features, take a look
    at the basic resources in OpenStack

    We discussed your email at today’s API-SIG meeting [0]. This is an
    area that is always contentious in the RESTful world. Actions,
    tasks, and state changes are not actual resources, and in a pure
    REST design they should never be part of the URL. Instead, you
    should POST to the actual resource, with the desired action in the
    body. So in your example:

    > URL:/volumes/{volume_id}/action
    > BODY:{'extend':{}}

    the preferred way of achieving this is:

    URL: POST /volumes/{volume_id}
    BODY: {‘action’: ‘extend’, ‘params’: {}}

    The handler for the POST action should inspect the body, and call
    the appropriate method.

    Having said that, we realize that a lot of OpenStack services have
    adopted the more RPC-like approach that you’ve outlined. So while
    we strongly recommend a standard RESTful approach, if you have
    already released an RPC-like API, our advice is:

    a) avoid having every possible verb in the URL. In other words,
    don’t use:
    This moves you further into RPC-land, and will make updating your
    API to a more RESTful design more difficult.

    b) choose a standard term for the item in the URL. In other words,
    always use ‘action’ or ‘task’ or whatever else you have adopted.
    Don’t mix terminology. Then pass the action to perform, along with
    any parameters in the body. This will make it easier to transition
    to a RESTful design by later updating the handlers to first
    inspect the BODY instead of relying upon the URL to determine what
    action to perform.

    You might also want to contact the Kong developers to see if there
    is a way to work with a RESTful API design.

    -- Ed Leafe


    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Reply via email to