On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 07:50:08AM -0700, J. Shirley wrote: > > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:06:30AM -0700, J. Shirley wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sorry but I don't understand your point - so maybe first I'll > restate > > > > > mine. If you have primary key in the database that is of type > varchar > > > > > (or char or ...) then 'create' is a legitimage value for that > primary > > > > > key. > > > > > > > > > > If you just don't like the string 'id' in the URI - then I have not > > > > > any preference to that - it can be /foo/primary_key/ for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is that you do not have to use the primary key as the record > > > > lookup identifier. > > > > > > > > A user has no control over the record lookup identifier (ID) when you > > > > do things like /user/{primary_key} (or /user/id/{primary_key}, which > > > > is just converting named params to positional in a weird way). In a > > > > lot of cases, the record lookup identifier makes more sense to be > > > > somewhat bound to the user. As an example, lets say registering for a > > > > web service where you have to have a unique login: > > > > POST /user/jshirley > > > > --- > > > > login: jshirley > > > > first_name: Jay > > > > last_name: Shirley > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Now, it's a simple check here - does /user/jshirley exist? If so, > > > > reject the request appropriately. If not, create the user at > > > > /user/jshirley. > > > > > > > > The primary key that the database uses is completely useless to the > > > > user. /user/1634254 is silly, /user/jshirley is meaningful. > > > > > > I fail to see how whether the PK is the lookup key or not has any > > > relevance at all to the original point, which was "your lookup key and > > > names of actions might clash so it can be nice to have an extra path > component > > > such as 'id' for the lookup part to disambiguate". > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm talking about REST and a verb in the URI doesn't need to be > there. > > You'd never have a /user/recent or similar URL? I guess if you assume that > all views onto the collection are done via query parameters, or just > move that funcationality to /recent-users or similar then it doesn't matter. > > But that's a different sort of uglification of the URL; it doesn't get rid > of it. > > And it still doesn't help if you want to allow lookup by more than one > name so far as I can see. > >
Search vs. Browse is separate user actions and deserves separate resource space. /user implies a single user. /users implies browsing. So in this hypothetical case I would probably have a top level namespace for /browse that had its own hierarchy (since most people are going to browse more than just people) /browse/users/recent But... I also would do /browse/people/recent Now you have a better (read-only) browse namespace on your site and it descends into a hierarchy appropriately. _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/