-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
URLs for amendment service methods #189
Comments
I'm confused. Isn't this entirely typical of the "RESTful" APIs for studies, collections, etc.? Granted these are distinct from the other APIs that include method names, but there are many precedents for this pattern. |
For a description of REST please see: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/webarch_icse2000.pdf In short, all URLs 'identify' some resource, GET when supported returns the If that's not what you're doing, you're not doing REST. REST doesn't deal with RPC well, and it is designed for only a single kind Most web API designers nowadays ignore REST and use an RPC style instead. It hadn't occurred to me that you were thinking of /v3/amendment as So the problem I have - after your reminder that it was intended to be If other ways of updating the amendment shards came along, such as a method How is study creation performed, by the way? I don't see that in our API Personally I find the REST rhetoric sort of squishy and imperious; the |
There is currently one method, and according to the doc its URL looks like this:
https://api.opentreeoflife.org/v3/amendment
It would be nicer if the name followed the pattern of the other APIs, where the URL is /v3/apiname/methodname. This makes the overall API more uniform, and also allows for the possibility of grouping together additional methods having to do with additions and other amendments, which seems likely.
The method for requesting the addition of new taxa might be called something like
add_taxa
, ergo/v3/amendment/add_taxa
. If we ever generalize to other kinds of amendments we might want to have a new method.Sorry I didn't catch this on PR review.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: