3 ms·
I'm totally fine with calling it RPC-over-HTTP, or RESTless, or unREST. I'm also fine with just calling it REST. I don't care. I'm not fine with making an API
by incrudible 6y ago
I'm totally fine with calling it RPC-over-HTTP, or RESTless, or unREST. I'm also fine with just calling it REST. I don't care.
I'm not fine with making an API use HATEOAS, especially not for the sake of being pedantically accurate about the word REST.
As for your defense of HATEOAS, you're not doing a good job. If it's such a good idea, why is pretty much nobody doing it as intended? How exactly does it help with versioning? Can you describe a real use case?
The way I see it, if you want to break your API, slap /v2 in front of it. Otherwise, I strongly suggest that you do not break your API. Do not move stuff around pointlessly. I guarantee you that even if you followed HATEOAS best practices to the letter, your clients are still going to break. You don't want that.
- rualca 6y ago> I'm not fine with making an API use HATEOAS And that's perfectly fine, but don't call what you're doing REST because it really isn't.
- incrudible 6y agoThis is a semantic dispute. Our disagreement is on whether this is a dispute worth arguing over. There are many other industry buzzwords like "object oriented" that don't match up with what the people who coined the term had in mind. It's a nuisance, but nothing to get worked up over.