Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6360Re: [rest-discuss] Is it OK to have two URL's for GET's - one for a list of items and one for single items?

Expand Messages
  • Justin T. Sampson
    Aug 1, 2006
      Hi Scott,

      The same question came up a couple weeks ago -- you'll find several
      different opinions. But all were agreed that REST itself doesn't
      suggest one or the other approach, as long as client code is not
      hard-coded with knowledge of any chosen structure. So it's just a
      matter of human understanding. My own preference is for </sites/>
      (including trailing slash) and </sites/2> (using the plural), treating
      "sites" as a kind of virtual folder. The implementation approach I use
      lets me differentiate those however I want, so they are separate
      "pages" regardless.


      On 8/1/06, Scott Chapman <scott_list@...> wrote:

      > I'm considering making different URL's for retrieval of a list of sites vs.
      > one site (sites are actual locations on the ground in my scenario):
      > List of sites: http://www.../sites?name1=value1&name2=value2
      > Single site: http://www.../site/2
      > Is this considered Ok for good REST development or should the "sites" (plural)
      > URL be used in all cases?
      > I am considering this because the implementation on the server side would be
      > cleaner, having separate "pages" for list vs. single site returns. I'd like
      > to know what people think of this.
      > I'm new to RESTful design. Please let me know what the pro's and con's are of
      > doing it this way from a design perspective.
      > Thanks!
      > Scott
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic