[asterisk-app-dev] Changing POST /bridges/{bridgeId}/addChannel

[Daniel Jenkins]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:56 PM, David M. Lee <dlee at digium.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Daniel Jenkins <dan.jenkins88 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I know Mr Lee said that he didn't go full on HATEAOS style, but your verbs
> are meant to be your GET, POST, PUT and DELETE methods and so the fact
> you're doing a post means create and the fact you're doing PUT means you're
> adding...
>
> Is this a rabbit hole we want to go down? I just don't like routes that
> contain verbs, it feels messy to me.
>
>
> I agree that it's messy, but I decided to make some compromises for the
> sake of readability and usability. We avoid verbs when we can, but there
> are cases where it's just not practical.
>
> Here was the process I went through designing the /bridges API.
>
> Channels can exist without bridges, so it's better if there are no bridge
> related operations on the channel. That avoids a cyclic dependency between
> bridges and channels.
>
> Here was my first thought:
>
> POST /bridges/{bridgeId}/channels/{channelId} - add a channel to a bridge
> DELETE /bridges/{bridgeId}/channels/{channelId} - remove a channel from a
> bridge
>
> That's okay, but you've lost the ability for bulk operations. So now
> you'll want to post to the /channels resource itself. Without putting verbs
> in the route, you're left with this:
>
> PUT /bridges/{bridgeId}/channels ["channelId", …] - update the channel list
>
> (Look, Dan. I used a PUT :-D)
>

:D :D


>
> Okay, now we can update the list of channels that are in the bridge. But
> this has its own problems. What if other channels are being added to the
> bridge concurrently? Now you have the danger of write conflicts causing
> changes to be lost.
>
> That's a problem that could be solved, by adding a version number to the
> resource and doing optimistic locking, but now the application developer
> has to deal with 409 Conflict failures when the channel list is updated
> concurrently.
>
> I always came around to having /addChannels and /removeChannels routes
> just to make the API usable. Since we had to have them anyways, I didn't
> see the point of having the 'clean' version, too.
>

That's cool, if it makes sense in this context, I'm cool with it


>
> --
> David M. Lee
> Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
>
> 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
> Check us out at:  www.digium.com  & www.asterisk.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> asterisk-app-dev mailing list
> asterisk-app-dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-app-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-app-dev/attachments/20131016/9c54fe6e/attachment.html>