Thanks for the feedback guys.
> In my experience, however, it's usually more than just the view that
changes between versions. The controller receives customizations as well,
sometimes. Therefore, I think that versioning the views is not a "majority
case" and shouldn't be a core feature.
Ryan, we've updated our samples to show how changes to your API logic (per
version) can be accounted for in your controllers to ensure
backwards/forwards compatibility :
class PostsController < ApplicationController
def index
# shared code for all versions
@posts = Post.scoped
# version 3 or greated supports embedding post comments
if requested_version >= 3
@posts = @posts.includes(:comments)
end
end
end
It's just a simple comparison against the view version.
The beauty of the view based APIs is that they allow you to easily reuse
your existing controller logic. Separating of API logic into their own
controllers doesn't have that advantage.
So our solution covers both the controller, allowing you to make exceptions
to ensure forwards/backwards compatibility by simply checking against the
current version (please see our updated examples) and then the
aforementioned view version with degradation support.
Jim Jones
http://www.github.com/aantix
On Sunday, September 16, 2012 1:46:34 PM UTC-7, mrloz wrote:
>
> I just wanted to chime in a second.
>
> I agree this versioning is a little niche.
>
> Is there, however, a neat public API in rails for gem authors to add in
> lookup match parts for view lookup?
>
> I.e is it possible to register (:apiversion) into lookup paths and have it
> be handled by my class (ApiVersionPathHandler). Similar to the current
> .format and .locale stuff in view file names
>
> For me it might be about other things (regions, roles whatever my gem
> wants to provide)
>
> I am under the impression that these parts are not open to extension at
> present.
>
> Cheers
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16 Sep 2012, at 21:21, Ryan Bigg <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
> [This email will arrive approx 15 hours after I've written it. Sorry if
> there's been talk on this post by that stage that I am "ignoring"]
>
> I'm not sure I can agree with such a feature being a part of Rails just
> yet. There is currently many different approaches to designing APIs with
> Rails, going from the very basic "render JSON" calls in the controllers, to
> rabl and (god forbid, only because the syntax is really ugly) JBuilder, to
> ActiveModel::Serializers and not to forget the new Rails::API gem thing
> that Santiago Pastorino and co are working on.
>
> My point is that there's all these different ways to do the design of the
> API and, besides the default render call, none of these are core Rails
> features. They're all external gems that offer their unique take on how to
> "properly" design an API.
>
> I can definitely see how, in a very small use case, versioning the views
> for an API could be useful. In my experience, however, it's usually more
> than just the view that changes between versions. The controller receives
> customizations as well, sometimes. Therefore, I think that versioning the
> views is not a "majority case" and shouldn't be a core feature.
>
> I think the best course of action here is to leave the functionality as a
> gem and promote it as yet another alternative to designing an API with
> Rails.
>
> On 15/09/2012, at 19:18, Jim Jones <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
> My friend Ben Willis and I have developed a gem for the versioning of
> Rails views.
> https://github.com/bwillis/versioncake
>
> The versioning is done by the naming convention. Image the following
> series of files :
>
> show.v3.json.jbuilder
> show.v2.json.jbuilder
> show.v1.json.jbuilder
>
> create.v2.json.jbuilder
> create.v1.json.jbuilder
>
> The developer pre-defines all view versions in their config. When a
> specific view version is specified (via a header or request param) , if the
> version of that view exists, it is rendered, otherwise, the request
> _degrades_ to the previous version.
>
> This makes it really handy for APIs/Jbuilder views. For example, if you
> defined a new version for your API, e.g. v3, yet all other actions remain
> the same, the degradation will automatically select the appropriate
> backward compatible view (v2 for the create view above).
>
> The versioning functionality is passive meaning that if the version file
> extensions aren't utilized, the end user (especially beginners) will not
> know that the functionality exists.
>
> Our end goal is to merge and submit a pull request for Rails core.
>
> Would love to hear everyone's thoughts.
>
> Jim Jones
> http://www.github.com/aantix
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/9POep66BvoMJ.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected] <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected] <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/Oyigk16rMzwJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
