[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12907751#action_12907751
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-98:
---------------------------------------
It occurs to me that this is also unworkable, for the same character-stuffing
reasons:
outputconnection/execute/<command> (connection_name, arguments) -> GET
outputconnectionrequest/<connection_name>/<command> ()
At issue is the <command> following the <connection_name>. These would need to
be reversed:
outputconnection/execute/<command> (connection_name, arguments) -> GET
request/<command>/outputconnection/<connection_name> ()
or:
outputconnection/execute/<command> (connection_name, arguments) -> GET
request/outputconnection/<command>/<connection_name> ()
Problem is that for either one of these the <command> cannot itself contain "/"
characters, or it won't be uniquely parseable. That limits input argument
structure even more. However, it is still acceptable under current usage,
because right now we're not doing anything terribly complex with this feature.
FWIW, I think I prefer the former to the latter option.
> 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.
