- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 22:53:39 +0100
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
On 02/03/2015 06:58 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > Gregg Kellogg >> On 2015-02-03 16:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>>> In my api's and clients I much prefer to use offset and limit as a more fundamental concept to partial collections. >>> This has strong repercussions of the cacheability of answers, >>> which is crucial when many clients consume the API. >>> (Graphs: http://linkeddatafragments.org/publications/iswc2014.pdf) >>> >> I've also disliked limit/offset endpoints because they empower users to query for very large portions of data unless the limit parameter is constrained. > IMO, using limit/offset is natural, and expressing them as URI query parameters creates resource identifiers useful for first/last/previous/next links. In my implementations, the first page of the collection typically has no limit/offset parameters, but the rest do. > I fully agree to this. And yes, In case the limit is too high, I think the server could just responding with HTTP 416 Requested range not satisfiable, for example.
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 22:03:01 UTC