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

Write-only resources

Expand Messages
  • Ebenezer Ikonne
    Does anyone see issues with exposing a resource as write-only? If a resource is write-only, should the design be revisited? I read somewhere that its good
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Does anyone see issues with exposing a resource as write-only? If a
      resource is write-only, should the design be revisited? I read
      somewhere that its good design to make all resources at least "read-
      able", so if HTTP is the protocol of choice, the resource needs to be
      GET'able.

      Any thoughts?
    • mike amundsen
      I usually define a resource URL that allows POST (/postable/) that writes data to the server (file- or data-store) and then define another resource URL that
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I usually define a resource URL that allows POST (/postable/) that
        writes data to the server (file- or data-store) and then define
        another resource URL that allows reading that same data from the
        server.

        So it looks like this:
        POST /postable/ (response 204)

        Then later:
        GET /recent-posts/ (returns list of items recently posted to /postable/)

        Often I set rights on the /postable/ URL to POST=true and
        GET,HEAD,PUT,DELETE=false. The /recent-posts/ URL might be accessible
        only by admins or other higher-level users.

        Hope this helps.

        Mike A

        On Feb 10, 2008 8:29 PM, Ebenezer Ikonne <amaeze@...> wrote:
        > Does anyone see issues with exposing a resource as write-only? If a
        > resource is write-only, should the design be revisited? I read
        > somewhere that its good design to make all resources at least "read-
        > able", so if HTTP is the protocol of choice, the resource needs to be
        > GET'able.
        >
        > Any thoughts?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >



        --
        mca
        http://amundsen.com/blog/
      • Ebenezer Ikonne
        It helps in that you re thinking what I m thinking. :) Thanks. ... to /postable/) ... accessible ... If a ... least read- ... to be
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          It helps in that you're thinking what I'm thinking. :)

          Thanks.

          --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "mike amundsen" <mamund@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I usually define a resource URL that allows POST (/postable/) that
          > writes data to the server (file- or data-store) and then define
          > another resource URL that allows reading that same data from the
          > server.
          >
          > So it looks like this:
          > POST /postable/ (response 204)
          >
          > Then later:
          > GET /recent-posts/ (returns list of items recently posted
          to /postable/)
          >
          > Often I set rights on the /postable/ URL to POST=true and
          > GET,HEAD,PUT,DELETE=false. The /recent-posts/ URL might be
          accessible
          > only by admins or other higher-level users.
          >
          > Hope this helps.
          >
          > Mike A
          >
          > On Feb 10, 2008 8:29 PM, Ebenezer Ikonne <amaeze@...> wrote:
          > > Does anyone see issues with exposing a resource as write-only?
          If a
          > > resource is write-only, should the design be revisited? I read
          > > somewhere that its good design to make all resources at
          least "read-
          > > able", so if HTTP is the protocol of choice, the resource needs
          to be
          > > GET'able.
          > >
          > > Any thoughts?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > mca
          > http://amundsen.com/blog/
          >
        • mike amundsen
          [great minds think alike, eh ] I use a similar pattern for handling comments and emails back to me. I expose a POST-only URL and handle the details on the
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            [great minds think alike, eh<grin>]

            I use a similar pattern for handling comments and emails back to me. I
            expose a POST-only URL and handle the details on the server side.

            Mike A

            On Feb 10, 2008 9:28 PM, Ebenezer Ikonne <amaeze@...> wrote:
            > It helps in that you're thinking what I'm thinking. :)
            >
            > Thanks.
            >
            > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "mike amundsen" <mamund@...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > I usually define a resource URL that allows POST (/postable/) that
            > > writes data to the server (file- or data-store) and then define
            > > another resource URL that allows reading that same data from the
            > > server.
            > >
            > > So it looks like this:
            > > POST /postable/ (response 204)
            > >
            > > Then later:
            > > GET /recent-posts/ (returns list of items recently posted
            > to /postable/)
            > >
            > > Often I set rights on the /postable/ URL to POST=true and
            > > GET,HEAD,PUT,DELETE=false. The /recent-posts/ URL might be
            > accessible
            > > only by admins or other higher-level users.
            > >
            > > Hope this helps.
            > >
            > > Mike A
            > >
            > > On Feb 10, 2008 8:29 PM, Ebenezer Ikonne <amaeze@...> wrote:
            > > > Does anyone see issues with exposing a resource as write-only?
            > If a
            > > > resource is write-only, should the design be revisited? I read
            > > > somewhere that its good design to make all resources at
            > least "read-
            > > > able", so if HTTP is the protocol of choice, the resource needs
            > to be
            > > > GET'able.
            > > >
            > > > Any thoughts?
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > > --
            > > mca
            > > http://amundsen.com/blog/
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >



            --
            mca
            http://amundsen.com/blog/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.