[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12907729#action_12907729
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-98:
---------------------------------------
By the way, your proposal:
outputconnection/execute/<command> (connection_name, arguments) -> GET
outputconnections/request/<connection_name>/<command> (arguments)
... would not meet the REST-Web-Services definition. We could not pass
(arguments) except as part of the path.
Also, in order to avoid conflicts between connection names and commands like
"status", it seems clear to me that we would have to change the first part of
the path to disambiguate these two. For example:
outputconnection/get (connection_name) -> GET
outputconnection/<connection_name> ()
outputconnection/save (output_connection_object) -> PUT outputconnection
(output_connection_object)
outputconnection/delete (connection_name) -> DELETE
outputconnection/<connection_name> ()
outputconnection/list () -> GET outputconnections ()
outputconnection/checkstatus (connection_name) -> GET
outputconnectionstatus/<connection_name> ()
outputconnection/execute/<command> (connection_name, arguments) -> GET
outputconnectionrequest/<connection_name>/<command> ()
> API should be "pure" RESTful with the API verb represented using the HTTP
> GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CONNECTORS-98
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98
> Project: Apache Connectors Framework
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: API
> Affects Versions: LCF Release 0.5
> Reporter: Jack Krupansky
> Fix For: LCF Release 0.5
>
>
> (This was originally a comment on CONNECTORS-56 dated 7/16/2010.)
> It has come to my attention that the API would be more "pure" RESTful if the
> API verb was represented using the HTTP GET/PUT/POST/DELETE methods and the
> input argument identifier represented in the context path.
> So, GET outputconnection/get \{"connection_name":_<connection_name>_\} would
> be GET outputconnections/<connection_name>
> and GET outputconnection/delete \{"connection_name":_<connection_name>_\}
> would be DELETE outputconnections/<connection_name>
> and GET outputconnection/list would be GET outputconnections
> and PUT outputconnection/save
> \{"outputconnection":_<output_connection_object>_\} would be PUT
> outputconnections/<connection_name>
> \{"outputconnection":_<output_connection_object>_\}
> What we have today is certainly workable, but just not as "pure" as some
> might desire. It would be better to take care of this before the initial
> release so that we never have to answer the question of why it wasn't done as
> a "proper" RESTful API.
> BTW, I did check to verify that an HttpServlet running under Jetty can
> process the DELETE and PUT methods (using the doDelete and doPut method
> overrides.)
> Also, POST should be usable as an alternative to PUT for API calls that have
> large volumes of data.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
