[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-list] Action Parameters



On 06/22/2010 12:16 AM, Jason L Connor wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 16:29 -0700, Mike McCune wrote:
On 06/21/2010 02:37 PM, Jason L Connor wrote:
Hi All,

I've been playing around with making our API conform to the restful
practices in the 'rest-practices' branch. While hacking away, I've
noticed that we don't really have any particular convention for the
format of parameters (read: body) passed into action POST calls.

There are a number of conventions we can adopt:

1. no convention: let each controller figure out the parameters it
expects and the order it expects them in.

-1

REST is free-flowing enough, lets not make it worse with no convention.


2. only one parameter: the body contains only a single parameter, which
can be a list or dictionary of multiple parameters.

still seems too untyped for me.  Even looking at the controller's


3. key word arguments: the body always contains a dictionary, of
<parameter name>:<parameter value>   pairs


clear, concise and obvious.  What isn't to love?

4. others?

----

The reason I bring this up is: The restful practices has produced some
very nice looking patterns that allow for some abstraction in the web
services layer. However, not having a convention for the way parameters
are passed into the action uris limits our ability of abstraction and
places a burden on both client and server developers by having to know
how to format parameters on a action by action basis.

I don't have really strong feelings about this. But it seems like a nice
practice for consistency.

Thoughts?


I vote #3.  keep it named and obvious.



+1 for convention #3 as well. I think having the parameters named in the
body will also help us with debugging the calls.



If (3) is a well formed json document then if you move to making the body a first clas resource it will be easy. Plus, it makes it easier for integration.

On a related note, my suggestion would be for someone to hack in a non-python client with automatic marshalling (ActiveResource or RestEasy clients). It will help you learn how nice, or not, your API is.

-- bk


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]