5 ms·

I think this is still versioning. You just end up versioning with the endpoint URI. Eg many names that end -2 or -3.

wellpast 7y ago
If the semantics change, why do you need a “-2”? If the semantics don’t change, why do you need a new URI. Keep in mind you don’t have to focus on the suffix or the last part of the path name when you are naming things by URI. Also, why is it versioning? You have two endpoints in use. One happened to exist before the other one. That’s an incidental property. And there are scenarios where you may deprecate the latter before the former. Thinking in “versions” is not an accurate/ergonomic mapping of the domain anyway; we’ve just been tricked into thinking that way because... anthropology something.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- antonvs 7y ago
  > If the semantics change, why do you need a “-2”? Because the API may serve the same purpose as the original, with some modified semantics. > Also, why is it versioning? Because the API may serve the same purpose as the original, with some modified semantics. Sharing a common name with versioning helps identify the relationships between the versions. It also avoids polluting the API namespace with a set of different names for different versions of essentially the same operations. > Thinking in “versions” is not an accurate/ergonomic mapping of the domain anyway; we’ve just been tricked into thinking that way because... anthropology something. It feels to me like you're trying to hard to be contrarian, or perhaps you're dealing with some special case scenario where your strategy makes sense. You'd need to explain the argument in significantly more detail to have a chance of making it convincing.
  - wellpast 7y ago
    See the link to Rich Hickey’s talk in my other comment. It covers the issues pretty well. I’m not being contrarian, but I am expressing frustration with a common yet unnecessarily complicated approach to a general problem. But I stand by my statements, they’ve paid off tremendously in real world contexts.

If the semantics change, why do you need a “-2”? If the semantics don’t change, why do you need a new URI. Keep in mind you don’t have to focus on the suffix or the last part of the path name when you are naming things by URI. Also, why is it versioning? You have two endpoints in use. One happened to exist before the other one. That’s an incidental property. And there are scenarios where you may deprecate the latter before the former. Thinking in “versions” is not an accurate/ergonomic mapping of the domain anyway; we’ve just been tricked into thinking that way because... anthropology something.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
antonvs 7y ago
> If the semantics change, why do you need a “-2”? Because the API may serve the same purpose as the original, with some modified semantics. > Also, why is it versioning? Because the API may serve the same purpose as the original, with some modified semantics. Sharing a common name with versioning helps identify the relationships between the versions. It also avoids polluting the API namespace with a set of different names for different versions of essentially the same operations. > Thinking in “versions” is not an accurate/ergonomic mapping of the domain anyway; we’ve just been tricked into thinking that way because... anthropology something. It feels to me like you're trying to hard to be contrarian, or perhaps you're dealing with some special case scenario where your strategy makes sense. You'd need to explain the argument in significantly more detail to have a chance of making it convincing.
- wellpast 7y ago
  See the link to Rich Hickey’s talk in my other comment. It covers the issues pretty well. I’m not being contrarian, but I am expressing frustration with a common yet unnecessarily complicated approach to a general problem. But I stand by my statements, they’ve paid off tremendously in real world contexts.