Over in this thread<http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/msg14226.html> was a discussion on API versioning and implementing via Accept: headers vs. adding a version in the URL. Looks like using a version in the URL is winning.
We have existing chained actions that might look like this: /account/<id>/widget/<id> If want to migrate to a new version scheme in the URL like this: /api/v1/account/<id>/widget/<id> This would be the same action chain as the first path -- and both would work at the same time. Is there any way to support both actions via Chained dispatching? Or will I need a role that looks for that pattern and strips it of the request during prepare_action? I've done something similar in the past where I added a language tag at the start of every path: /en_us/some/path/1234 I strip that off and then update $c->req->path for dispatching. Again, I'm in the Accept: header camp for versioning, but I'm finding more and more discussion on using URLs. There's an e-book <http://pages.apigee.com/web-api-design-ebook.html>that seems to be cited often. I'd be interested in other's view on that book -- it seems written from a practical Rails programmer point of view instead of a REST purist view. There's a lot in that e-book I don't really agree with (plural nouns?), but the practical usage seems to be winning out. Hope it's not a mistake in the long run. -- Bill Moseley mose...@hank.org
_______________________________________________ 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/