On this one if http://www.example.com/parts/sku1234/orders/order56789 referred only to the order line for that part (i.e. deletion of the part results in deletion of the line) would you then consider it reasonable to have the two routes? The reason I ask is that ..../orders which shows all the orders for a given sku would be very useful.
Steve 2008/4/26 Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > Hi Anne, > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I have my issues with the AWWW v1. > > > > From a resource modeling perspective, I'd like the option of > > navigating to a resource through multiple paths, e.g.: > > > > http://www.example.com/parts/sku1234/orders/order56789 > > http://www.example.com/customers/cust23457/orders/order56789 > > If I ever published a FAQ of the questions I get from clients, this > would be in the top five. > > The relationship between parts and orders is not usually one of > hierarchical containment as you describe there. A litmus test I > encourage my clients to use is to ask the question, "If I delete the > part, does the order die with it?". If not, then hierarchical names > are inappropriate. What you usually want in the case of parts and > orders is to use hypermedia, so that a GET on > http://example.com/orders/23434 returns a document which includes > links to http://example.com/parts/545454 as well as other parts in the > order. > > > > http://www.example.com/orders/order56789 > > > > But I much prefer this URL to something truly opaque like: > > > > http://www/example.com/123453456234511111 > > Agreed. > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com >
