RE: removing hydra:search

+CC public-hydra (keeping Thomas' complete mail)


On Monday, March 03, 2014 10:37 AM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02/28/2014 10:07 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:13 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> >> On 02/19/2014 11:16 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >> Your second mail:
> >>
> >>> t's still not quite comprehensible
> >>> to keep search but drop basic CRUD operations
> >>> I'd say: precisely because search is_not_  a basic operation.
> >>>
> >> Well but then I have to ask why we remove basic stuff like CRUD
> >> opertions and keep complex stuff like search... this is somewhat
> >> inconsistent to me.
> > I do think CRUD functionality is quite important for a lot of APIs.
> Over the
> > last months, however, it became clear that they confused a lot of
> people. I
> > would thus be very open to create a separate Hydra CRUD vocabulary
> defining
> > those operations with strictly CRUD apps in mind.
> 
> ok, I like that idea!
> I suggest this as a staring point:
> 
> GET    RetrieveResourceOperation
> POST   AppendResourceOperation   (ID is generated and not provided in
> the POSTed data)
> PUT    CreateOrReplaceOperation   (ID is provided within the PUTed
> data)
> PATCH  UpdateResourceOperation  (Single or multiple property updates)
> DELETE DeleteResourceOperation
>
> The given HTTP actions are not a strict mapping but merely a "best fit"
> suggestion
> how they could map to the operations.

I've amended ISSUE-20 with your proposal:

  https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/20


> There is also a corresponding discussion on SO [1].
> The operations itself should be self explaining.

Hmm.. PATCH is always tricky as we would need a separate patch format. 


> > If we look at collections from that point of view, strictly speaking
> > Collections wouldn't belong to the core vocabulary either. The thing
> is
> > though that they are so common in almost all Web APIs that it does
> make
> > sense to include them directly in the core vocab... and as soon you
> have
> > collections, people will ask for search. Now we could move all of
> this into
> > a Hydra collection vocabulary but I think that would go too far.
> 
> ok, but at least you see my concerns regarding consistency :)
> I also think it is no good to split things up in too many parts right
> from the start.

Exactly


> >>> It's not covered by the HTTP spec,
> >>> so if machines want to use it, it needs to be described.
> >> Yea but as we found out in discussions about the CRUD operations
> >> things are more complex than they seem and and thus also need to be
> >> described.
> >> I'm curious how we will end up with this.
> >>
> >> To whom it may concern: I will be one week on vacation from now.
> > I hope you had some nice holidays.
> 
> Yea, Tuscany is a great getaway :)
> 
> [1]
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8132445/how-to-support-partial-
> updates-patch-in-rest


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 13:49:22 UTC