Got it, I would prefer to adjust the first revision and make it RESTful. HATEOAS may be the final version haha :)
Best Regards! @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan> Shyamal Madura Chinthaka <shyamal.mad...@gmail.com> 于2021年7月27日周二 下午4:03写道： > Hi Zhiyuan, > > Good day to you and all! > > Yes, you are spot on. This eventually increases the robustness of the API > to decouple service client static awareness uses the server-provided links > to dynamically discover available actions and access the resources it > needs. > > Regards, > Shyamal > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:31 AM Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi, Shyamal, > > > > Just to make sure, do you mean you want the response body including > > something like `_herf` or `links` to other resources? > > > > ```json > > { > > "id" : 1, > > "body" : "My first blog post", > > "postdate" : "2015-05-30T21:41:12.650Z", > > "_links" : { > > "self": { "href": "http://blog.example.com/posts/1"; }, > > "comments": { "href": "http://blog.example.com/posts/1/comments > ", > > "totalcount" : 20 }, > > "tags": { "href": "http://blog.example.com/posts/1/tags"; } > > } > > } > > ``` > > > > Best Regards! > > @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan> > > > > > > Shyamal Madura Chinthaka <shyamal.mad...@gmail.com> 于2021年7月27日周二 > > 上午2:36写道： > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > +1 to rely on HTTP status code instead of the code in the response > body. > > > > > > This will take our burden of enforcing governance to define/maintain > > > additional code in the response body which will unlikely to effectively > > > override the HTTP status code. > > > > > > However - if possible - enriching the response of these APIs to adopt > > > HATEOAS would be progressive immensely. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Shyamal > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021, 07:20 Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Users have 2 ways to use our product: Using Dashboard or Call API > > > directly. > > > > > > > > We have JSONSchema checker on the backend, if users call API directly > > and > > > > check failed, it will return the JSONSchema error; if users use > > > Dashboard, > > > > why not validate data on Web? So I think there has no need to add a > > > > specific login code in the Response Body :) > > > > > > > > Best Regards! > > > > @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chao Zhang <zchao1...@gmail.com> 于2021年7月26日周一 上午9:41写道： > > > > > > > > > HTTP status code will be fine if we don’t care the very specific > > error > > > > > type. > > > > > > > > > > Chao Zhang > > > > > https://github.com/tokers > > > > > > > > > > On July 25, 2021 at 17:34:40, Jintao Zhang ( > > zhangjintao9...@gmail.com) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I agree! > > > > > At the same time, I also think that HTTP Status code should be used > > > > instead > > > > > of the logical code field. > > > > > > > > > > Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> 于2021年7月25日周日 下午3:29写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Any further discussion on this mail? I'm going to list all APIs > and > > > > check > > > > > > which part we should modify. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards! > > > > > > @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> 于2021年7月22日周四 下午2:47写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer relying on Status Code instead of `code` > (actually > > > > it's > > > > > a > > > > > > > manual logical and extendable code). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not list all API cases then have a choice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards! > > > > > > > @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> 于2021年7月22日周四 下午12:36写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> please give an example about i18n for a better understanding > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> Ming Wen, Apache APISIX PMC Chair > > > > > > >> Twitter: _WenMing > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> JunXu Chen <chenju...@apache.org> 于2021年7月22日周四 上午11:36写道： > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Agree +1 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I think we still need to keep the `code` field. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > The FE needs to implement i18n according to it. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Unless `message` is semantic and can be used as a key of > i18n. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 00:02, Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > I don't think the `code` filed is useful, HTTP response > code > > > is > > > > > > >> enough. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > Ming Wen, Apache APISIX PMC Chair > > > > > > >> > > Twitter: _WenMing > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Peter Zhu <sta...@apache.org> 于2021年7月21日周三 下午11:18写道： > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Agree +1. > > > > > > >> > > > And I think we should maintain the `code` filed and > > maintain > > > > the > > > > > > >> doc of > > > > > > >> > > > API. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
