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

Re: [rest-discuss] URI design

Expand Messages
  • Steve Klabnik
    REST says absolutely nothing about URI design.
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.