[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-98?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12908554#action_12908554
]
Karl Wright commented on CONNECTORS-98:
---------------------------------------
bq. On closer examination, all of the examples I have found use an "id" rather
than a name in the path. Typically a number or maybe alphanumeric with hyphens.
So, we should consider revisiting that aspect of the API. That avoids the slash
issue.
bq.
bq. So, presumably an app using the API would query the list of connections and
the JSON would provide the id for each connection and the the app would use
those ids for API calls.
For connections, there are no id's. The connection_name is the primary key for
this entity. So unless you want a wholesale rework of the schema as well as a
rewrite of some 50% of acf code, that is not an 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.
