4 ms·
> Your opinion is a fact, imo This doesn't parse very well to me. As far as your main point, I disagree. The /playlist/:playlist_id/:song_id/:index thing doe
by generalk 16y ago
> Your opinion is a fact, imo
This doesn't parse very well to me.
As far as your main point, I disagree. The /playlist/:playlist_id/:song_id/:index thing doesn't seem very good, no. But, if you kept an id that mapped songs to playlists, you could easily do DELETE /playlists/:playlist_id/:song_playlist_id and be done with it.
REST doesn't say you have to update the entire resource just because a member of that resource needs to be deleted.
- davidmathers 16y agoI agree with you hypothetically. But my question was about their real world issues. They could, in theory, have ids for songs-in-playlists. But they don't in fact have them and their RPC api doesn't require them. That's what I'm interested in. Not how they could change their architecture to make REST work.
- AffableSpatula 16y agoif it's a big deal to make that change then their underlying architecture needs a review.