3 ms·

Right.. so... that doesn't jibe with how the real world thinks about these things. In the real world we want the pet to have an "owner" attribute, which is part

Right.. so... that doesn't jibe with how the real world thinks about these things. In the real world we want the pet to have an "owner" attribute, which is part of the resource.

geezerjay 7y ago
The pet does have an owner. It's another resource, however, whose location can and does change.
- solipsism 7y ago
  You should just know that this makes zero sense to most of us. Either that's because it makes no sense, or you can't explain it well, or we're all too stupid to get it. Either way, good luck with that "standard".
  - geezerjay 7y ago
    > You should just know that this makes zero sense to most of us. Unless you've held an election, you only speak on behalf of yourself and yourself alone. If you're having a hard time understanding basic concepts then naturally it's unlikely that you'll have an epiphany in a discussion where you're decided to take an hostile stance towards details you're not understanding. Meanwhile, you can ponder how these specifications you're claiming you and those you claim to be representing don't understand are actually used extensively, and it's such a basic concept that it even features in intro tutorials to REST APIs. Perhaps that's a good sign that basic concepts such as web linking aren't that complex or hard to understand as you've tried to assert they are. https://restfulapi.net/hateoas/ https://restfulapi.net/hateoas/
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      They provide what you've described as an alternative to what most consider the normal way of representing resource links. It doesn't make any of the claims you are making as to why one is more valid than others. So once more: sure we can do things your way, but why is it better? Every other source says link headers are an option. You claim they're superior. Why are they better? Why does representing links in headers and not bodies make the API easier to understand, navigate, or use? How does it clarify the interactions? What do I gain from it? So far, all you've said is "relationships are metadata" or something, which is not how most people consider relationships, and even if it we're true, it doesn't explain why my response can't contain metadata, as long as it's marked as such.
siscia 7y ago
The real world is outside Google and (at least try to) follows the RFC standard.

Right.. so... that doesn't jibe with how the real world thinks about these things. In the real world we want the pet to have an "owner" attribute, which is part of the resource.

geezerjay 7y ago

The pet does have an owner. It's another resource, however, whose location can and does change.

solipsism 7y ago
You should just know that this makes zero sense to most of us. Either that's because it makes no sense, or you can't explain it well, or we're all too stupid to get it. Either way, good luck with that "standard".
- geezerjay 7y ago
  > You should just know that this makes zero sense to most of us. Unless you've held an election, you only speak on behalf of yourself and yourself alone. If you're having a hard time understanding basic concepts then naturally it's unlikely that you'll have an epiphany in a discussion where you're decided to take an hostile stance towards details you're not understanding. Meanwhile, you can ponder how these specifications you're claiming you and those you claim to be representing don't understand are actually used extensively, and it's such a basic concept that it even features in intro tutorials to REST APIs. Perhaps that's a good sign that basic concepts such as web linking aren't that complex or hard to understand as you've tried to assert they are. https://restfulapi.net/hateoas/ https://restfulapi.net/hateoas/
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    They provide what you've described as an alternative to what most consider the normal way of representing resource links. It doesn't make any of the claims you are making as to why one is more valid than others. So once more: sure we can do things your way, but why is it better? Every other source says link headers are an option. You claim they're superior. Why are they better? Why does representing links in headers and not bodies make the API easier to understand, navigate, or use? How does it clarify the interactions? What do I gain from it? So far, all you've said is "relationships are metadata" or something, which is not how most people consider relationships, and even if it we're true, it doesn't explain why my response can't contain metadata, as long as it's marked as such.

siscia 7y ago

The real world is outside Google and (at least try to) follows the RFC standard.