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

URI design

Expand Messages
  • Max Toro
    Found this statement on the web: Implementing a http://www.mysite.com/invoice/add URI is not considered a REST compliant practice. What do you guys think? --
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 17, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Found this statement on the web:
      "Implementing a http://www.mysite.com/invoice/add URI is not
      considered a REST compliant practice."

      What do you guys think?
      --
      Max Toro
    • Erik Wilde
      ... depends on how interactions are designed around it. just saying that a URI isn t RESTful doesn t make a whole lot of sense... cheers, dret.
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 28, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2012-11-17 19:49 , Max Toro wrote:
        > Found this statement on the web:
        > "Implementing a http://www.mysite.com/invoice/add URI is not
        > considered a REST compliant practice."

        depends on how interactions are designed around it. just saying that "a
        URI isn't RESTful" doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

        cheers,

        dret.
      • Steve Klabnik
        REST says absolutely nothing about URI design.
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 28, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          REST says absolutely nothing about URI design.
        • Gaurav Agarwal
          I guess having something like: http://www.mysite.com/invoices And having a POST request to that link should make sense. Of course if trying to have a web
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 28, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I guess having something like:
            http://www.mysite.com/invoices

            And having a POST request to that link should make sense.

            Of course if trying to have a web interface you could have a GET
            http://www.mysite.com/invoices/edit page.

            Sent to you by Gaurav Agarwal :)

          • Jan Algermissen
            ... What the quote is trying to say is, I guess, that designing interactions in the spirit of RPC (here: InvoceService.add(invoice)) is not RESTful. Correct
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 29, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              On Nov 18, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Max Toro <maxtoroq@...> wrote:

              > Found this statement on the web:
              > "Implementing a http://www.mysite.com/invoice/add URI is not
              > considered a REST compliant practice."
              >
              > What do you guys think?

              What the quote is trying to say is, I guess, that designing interactions in the spirit of RPC (here: InvoceService.add(invoice)) is not RESTful.

              'Correct' would be sth like

              POST /invoices

              Content-type: application/foo.invoice

              <invoice> ... </invoice>

              You do not need an 'add' semantic.


              As for the URI string per se: that is opaque and meaningless (as Erik and Steve already noted).

              Jan





              > --
              > Max Toro
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.