Simple question I'm having trouble finding an answer to..
If I have a REST web service, and my design is not using url parameters, how can I specify two different keys to return the same resource by?
Example
I want (and have already implemented)
/Person/{ID}
which returns a person as expected.
Now I also want
/Person/{Name}
which returns a person by name.
Is this the correct RESTful format? Or is it something like:
/Person/Name/{Name}
You should only use one URI to refer to a single resource. Having multiple URIs will only cause confusion. In your example, confusion would arise due to two people having the same name. Which person resource are they referring to then?
That said, you can have multiple URIs refer to a single resource, but for anything other than the "true" URI you should simply redirect the client to the right place using a status code of 301 - Moved Permanently.
Personally, I would never implement a multi-ID scheme or redirection to support it. Pick a single identification scheme and stick with it. The users of your API will thank you.
What you really need to build is a query API, so focus on how you would implement something like a /personFinder resource which could take a name as a parameter and return potentially multiple matching /person/{ID} URIs in the response.
I guess technically you could have both URI's point to the same resource (perhaps with one of them as the canonical resource) but I think you wouldn't want to do this from an implementation perspective. What if there is an overlap between IDs and names?
It sure does seem like a good place to use query parameters, but if you insist on not doing so, perhaps you could do
person/{ID}
and
personByName/{Name}
I generally agree with this answer that for clarity and consistency it'd be best to avoid multiple ids pointing to the same entity.
Sometimes however, such a situation arises naturally. An example I work with is Polish companies, which can be identified by their tax id ('NIP' number) or by their national business registry id ('KRS' number).
In such case, I think one should first add the secondary id as a criterion to the search endpoint. Thus users will be able to "translate" between secondary id and primary id.
However, if users still keep insisting on being able to retrieve an entity directly by the secondary id (as we experienced), one other possibility is to provide a "secret" URL, not described in the documentation, performing such an operation. This can be given to users who made the effort to ask for it, and the potential ambiguity and confusion is then on them, if they decide to use it, not on everyone reading the documentation.
In terms of ambiguity and confusion for the API maintainer, I think this can be kept reasonably minimal with a helper function to immediately detect and translate the secondary id to primary id at the beginning of each relevant API endpoint.
It obviously matters much less than normal what scheme is chosen for the secret URL.
Some RESTful services use different resource URIs for update/get/delete and Create. Such as
Create - using /resources with POST method (observe plural) at some places using /resource (singular)
Update - using /resource/123 with PUT method
Get - Using /resource/123 with GET method
I'm little bit confused about this URI naming convention. Should we use plural or singular for resource creation? What should be the criteria while deciding that?
For me is better to have a schema that you can map directly to code (easy to automate), mainly because code is what is going to be at both ends.
GET /orders <---> orders
POST /orders <---> orders.push(data)
GET /orders/1 <---> orders[1]
PUT /orders/1 <---> orders[1] = data
GET /orders/1/lines <---> orders[1].lines
POST /orders/1/lines <---> orders[1].lines.push(data)
The premise of using /resources is that it is representing "all" resources. If you do a GET /resources, you will likely return the entire collection. By POSTing to /resources, you are adding to the collection.
However, the individual resources are available at /resource. If you do a GET /resource, you will likely error, as this request doesn't make any sense, whereas /resource/123 makes perfect sense.
Using /resource instead of /resources is similar to how you would do this if you were working with, say, a file system and a collection of files and /resource is the "directory" with the individual 123, 456 files in it.
Neither way is right or wrong, go with what you like best.
I don't see the point in doing this either and I think it is not the best URI design. As a user of a RESTful service I'd expect the list resource to have the same name no matter whether I access the list or specific resource 'in' the list. You should use the same identifiers no matter whether you want use the list resource or a specific resource.
Plural
Simple - all urls start with the same prefix
Logical - orders/ gets an index list of orders.
Standard - Most widely adopted standard followed by the overwhelming majority of public and private APIs.
For example:
GET /resources - returns a list of resource items
POST /resources - creates one or many resource items
PUT /resources - updates one or many resource items
PATCH /resources - partially updates one or many resource items
DELETE /resources - deletes all resource items
And for single resource items:
GET /resources/:id - returns a specific resource item based on :id parameter
POST /resources/:id - creates one resource item with specified id (requires validation)
PUT /resources/:id - updates a specific resource item
PATCH /resources/:id - partially updates a specific resource item
DELETE /resources/:id - deletes a specific resource item
To the advocates of singular, think of it this way: Would you ask a someone for an order and expect one thing, or a list of things? So why would you expect a service to return a list of things when you type /order?
Singular
Convenience
Things can have irregular plural names. Sometimes they don't have one.
But Singular names are always there.
e.g. CustomerAddress over CustomerAddresses
Consider this related resource.
This /order/12/orderdetail/12 is more readable and logical than /orders/12/orderdetails/4.
Database Tables
A resource represents an entity like a database table.
It should have a logical singular name.
Here's the answer over table names.
Class Mapping
Classes are always singular. ORM tools generate tables with the same names as class names. As more and more tools are being used, singular names are becoming a standard.
Read more about A REST API Developer's Dilemma
For things without singular names
In the case of trousers and sunglasses, they don't seem to have a singular counterpart. They are commonly known and they appear to be singular by use. Like a pair of shoes. Think about naming the class file Shoe or Shoes. Here these names must be considered as a singular entity by their use. You don't see anyone buying a single shoe to have the URL as
/shoe/23
We have to see Shoes as a singular entity.
Reference: Top 6 REST Naming Best Practices
Why not follow the prevalent trend of database table names, where a singular form is generally accepted? Been there, done that -- let's reuse.
Table Naming Dilemma: Singular vs. Plural Names
Whereas the most prevalent practice are RESTful apis where plurals are used e.g. /api/resources/123 , there is one special case where I find use of a singular name more appropriate/expressive than plural names. It is the case of one-to-one relationships. Specifically if the target item is a value object(in Domain-driven-design paradigm).
Let us assume every resource has a one-to-one accessLog which could be modeled as a value object i.e not an entity therefore no ID. It could be expressed as /api/resources/123/accessLog. The usual verbs (POST, PUT, DELETE, GET) would appropriately express the intent and also the fact that the relationship is indeed one-to-one.
I am surprised to see that so many people would jump on the plural noun bandwagon. When implementing singular to plural conversions, are you taking care of irregular plural nouns? Do you enjoy pain?
See
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/330/grammar/irrplu.htm
There are many types of irregular plural, but these are the most common:
Noun type Forming the plural Example
Ends with -fe Change f to v then Add -s
knife knives
life lives
wife wives
Ends with -f Change f to v then Add -es
half halves
wolf wolves
loaf loaves
Ends with -o Add -es
potato potatoes
tomato tomatoes
volcano volcanoes
Ends with -us Change -us to -i
cactus cacti
nucleus nuclei
focus foci
Ends with -is Change -is to -es
analysis analyses
crisis crises
thesis theses
Ends with -on Change -on to -a
phenomenon phenomena
criterion criteria
ALL KINDS Change the vowel or Change the word or Add a different ending
man men
foot feet
child children
person people
tooth teeth
mouse mice
Unchanging Singular and plural are the same
sheep deer fish (sometimes)
From the API consumer's perspective, the endpoints should be predictable so
Ideally...
GET /resources should return a list of resources.
GET /resource should return a 400 level status code.
GET /resources/id/{resourceId} should return a collection with one resource.
GET /resource/id/{resourceId} should return a resource object.
POST /resources should batch create resources.
POST /resource should create a resource.
PUT /resource should update a resource object.
PATCH /resource should update a resource by posting only the changed attributes.
PATCH /resources should batch update resources posting only the changed attributes.
DELETE /resources should delete all resources; just kidding: 400 status code
DELETE /resource/id/{resourceId}
This approach is the most flexible and feature rich, but also the most time consuming to develop. So, if you're in a hurry (which is always the case with software development) just name your endpoint resource or the plural form resources. I prefer the singular form because it gives you the option to introspect and evaluate programmatically since not all plural forms end in 's'.
Having said all that, for whatever reason the most commonly used practice developer's have chosen is to use the plural form. This is ultimately the route I have chosen and if you look at popular apis like github and twitter, this is what they do.
Some criteria for deciding could be:
What are my time constraints?
What operations will I allow my consumers to do?
What does the request and result payload look like?
Do I want to be able to use reflection and parse the URI in my code?
So it's up to you. Just whatever you do be consistent.
See Google's API Design Guide: Resource Names for another take on naming resources.
The guide requires collections to be named with plurals.
|--------------------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------------|
| API Service Name | Collection ID | Resource ID | Collection ID | Resource ID |
|--------------------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------------|
| //mail.googleapis.com | /users | /name#example.com | /settings | /customFrom |
| //storage.googleapis.com | /buckets | /bucket-id | /objects | /object-id |
|--------------------------+---------------+-------------------+---------------+--------------|
It's worthwhile reading if you're thinking about this subject.
An id in a route should be viewed the same as an index to a list, and naming should proceed accordingly.
numbers = [1, 2, 3]
numbers GET /numbers
numbers[1] GET /numbers/1
numbers.push(4) POST /numbers
numbers[1] = 23 PUT /numbers/1
But some resources don't use ids in their routes because there's either only one, or a user never has access to more than one, so those aren't lists:
GET /dashboard
DELETE /session
POST /session
GET /users/{:id}/profile
PUT /users/{:id}/profile
My two cents: methods who spend their time changing from plural to singular or viceversa are a waste of CPU cycles. I may be old-school, but in my time like things were called the same. How do I look up methods concerning people? No regular expresion will cover both person and people without undesirable side effects.
English plurals can be very arbitrary and they encumber the code needlessly. Stick to one naming convention. Computer languages were supposed to be about mathematical clarity, not about mimicking natural language.
I prefer using singular form for both simplicity and consistency.
For example, considering the following url:
/customer/1
I will treat customer as customer collection, but for simplicity, the collection part is removed.
Another example:
/equipment/1
In this case, equipments is not the correct plural form. So treating it as a equipment collection and removing collection for simplicity makes it consistent with the customer case.
The Most Important Thing
Any time you are using plurals in interfaces and code, ask yourself, how does your convention handle words like these:
/pants, /eye-glasses - are those the singular or the plural path?
/radii - do you know off the top of your head if the singular path for that is /radius or /radix?
/index - do you know off the top of your head if plural path for that is /indexes or /indeces or /indices?
Conventions should ideally scale without irregularity. English plurals do not do this, because
they have exceptions like one of something being called by the plural form, and
there is no trivial algorithm to get the plural of a word from the singular, get the singular from the plural, or tell if an unknown noun is singular or plural.
This has downsides. The most prominent ones off the top of my head:
The nouns whose singular and plural forms are the same will force your code to handle the case where the "plural" endpoint and the "singular" endpoint have the same path anyway.
Your users/developers have to be proficient with English enough to know the correct singulars and plurals for nouns. In an increasingly internationalized world, this can cause non-negligible frustration and overhead.
It singlehandedly turns "I know /foo/{{id}}, what's the path to get all foo?" into a natural language problem instead of a "just drop the last path part" problem.
Meanwhile, some human languages don't even have different singular and plural forms for nouns. They manage just fine. So can your API.
With naming conventions, it's usually safe to say "just pick one and stick to it", which makes sense.
However, after having to explain REST to lots of people, representing endpoints as paths on a file system is the most expressive way of doing it.
It is stateless (files either exist or don't exist), hierarchical, simple, and familiar - you already knows how to access static files, whether locally or via http.
And within that context, linguistic rules can only get you as far as the following:
A directory can contain multiple files and/or sub-directories, and therefore its name should be in plural form.
And I like that.
Although, on the other hand - it's your directory, you can name it "a-resource-or-multiple-resources" if that's what you want. That's not really the important thing.
What's important is that if you put a file named "123" under a directory named "resourceS" (resulting in /resourceS/123), you cannot then expect it to be accessible via /resource/123.
Don't try to make it smarter than it has to be - changing from plural to singluar depending on the count of resources you're currently accessing may be aesthetically pleasing to some, but it's not effective and it doesn't make sense in a hierarchical system.
Note: Technically, you can make "symbolic links", so that /resources/123 can also be accessed via /resource/123, but the former still has to exist!
I don't like to see the {id} part of the URLs overlap with sub-resources, as an id could theoretically be anything and there would be ambiguity. It is mixing different concepts (identifiers and sub-resource names).
Similar issues are often seen in enum constants or folder structures, where different concepts are mixed (for example, when you have folders Tigers, Lions and Cheetahs, and then also a folder called Animals at the same level -- this makes no sense as one is a subset of the other).
In general I think the last named part of an endpoint should be singular if it deals with a single entity at a time, and plural if it deals with a list of entities.
So endpoints that deal with a single user:
GET /user -> Not allowed, 400
GET /user/{id} -> Returns user with given id
POST /user -> Creates a new user
PUT /user/{id} -> Updates user with given id
DELETE /user/{id} -> Deletes user with given id
Then there is separate resource for doing queries on users, which generally return a list:
GET /users -> Lists all users, optionally filtered by way of parameters
GET /users/new?since=x -> Gets all users that are new since a specific time
GET /users/top?max=x -> Gets top X active users
And here some examples of a sub-resource that deals with a specific user:
GET /user/{id}/friends -> Returns a list of friends of given user
Make a friend (many to many link):
PUT /user/{id}/friend/{id} -> Befriends two users
DELETE /user/{id}/friend/{id} -> Unfriends two users
GET /user/{id}/friend/{id} -> Gets status of friendship between two users
There is never any ambiguity, and the plural or singular naming of the resource is a hint to the user what they can expect (list or object). There are no restrictions on ids, theoretically making it possible to have a user with the id new without overlapping with a (potential future) sub-resource name.
I know most people are between deciding whether to use plural or singular. The issue that has not been addressed here is that the client will need to know which one you are using, and they are always likely to make a mistake. This is where my suggestion comes from.
How about both? And by that, I mean use singular for your whole API and then create routes to forward requests made in the plural form to the singular form. For example:
GET /resources = GET /resource
GET /resources/1 = GET /resource/1
POST /resources/1 = POST /resource/1
...
You get the picture. No one is wrong, minimal effort, and the client will always get it right.
Use Singular and take advantage of the English convention seen in e.g. "Business Directory".
Lots of things read this way: "Book Case", "Dog Pack", "Art Gallery", "Film Festival", "Car Lot", etc.
This conveniently matches the url path left to right. Item type on the left. Set type on the right.
Does GET /users really ever fetch a set of users? Not usually. It fetches a set of stubs containing a key and perhaps a username. So it's not really /users anyway. It's an index of users, or a "user index" if you will. Why not call it that? It's a /user/index. Since we've named the set type, we can have multiple types showing different projections of a user without resorting to query parameters e.g. user/phone-list or /user/mailing-list.
And what about User 300? It's still /user/300.
GET /user/index
GET /user/{id}
POST /user
PUT /user/{id}
DELETE /user/{id}
In closing, HTTP can only ever have a single response to a single request. A path is always referring to a singular something.
Here's Roy Fielding dissertation of "Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures", and this quote might be of your interest:
A resource is a conceptual mapping
to a set of entities, not the entity that corresponds to the mapping at any particular point in
time.
Being a resource, a mapping to a set of entities, doesn't seem logical to me, to use /product/ as resource for accessing set of products, rather than /products/ itself. And if you need a particular product, then you access /products/1/.
As a further reference, this source has some words and examples on resource naming convention:
https://restfulapi.net/resource-naming/
Using plural for all methods is more practical at least in one aspect:
if you're developing and testing a resource API using Postman (or similar tool), you don't need to edit the URI when switching from GET to PUT to POST etc.
Great discussion points on this matter. Naming conventions or rather not establishing local standards has been in my experience the root cause of many long nights on-call, headaches, risky refactoring, dodgy deployments, code review debates, etc, etc, etc. Particularly when its decided that things need to change because insufficient consideration was given at the start.
An actual issue tracked discussion on this:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/18622
It is interesting to see the divide on this.
My two cents (with a light seasoning of headache experience) is that when you consider common entities like a user, post, order, document etc. you should always address them as the actual entity since that is what a data model is based on. Grammar and model entities shouldn't really be mixed up here and this will cause other points of confusion. However, is everything always black and white? Rarely so indeed. Context really matters.
When you wish to get a collection of users in a system, for example:
GET /user -> Collection of entity User
GET /user/1 -> Resource of entity User:1
It is both valid to say I want a collection of entity user and to say I want the users collection.
GET /users -> Collection of entity User
GET /users/1 -> Resource of entity User:1
From this you are saying, from the collection of users, give me user /1.
But if you break down what a collection of users is... Is it a collection of entities where each entity is a User entity.
You would not say entity is Users since a single database table is typically an individual record for a User. However, we are talking about a RESTful service here not a database ERM.
But this is only for a User with clear noun distinction and is an easy one to grasp. Things get very complex when you have multiple conflicting approaches in one system though.
Truthfully, either approach makes sense most of the time bar a few cases where English is just spaghetti. It appears to be a language that forces a number of decisions on us!
The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what you decide, be consistent and logical in your intent.
Just appears to me that mixing here and there is a bad approach! This quietly introduces some semantic ambiguity which can be totally avoided.
Seemingly singular preference:
https://www.haproxy.com/blog/using-haproxy-as-an-api-gateway-part-1/
Similar vein of discussion here:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/245202/what-is-the-argument-for-singular-nouns-in-restful-api-resource-naming
The overarching constant here is that it does indeed appear to be down to some degree of team/company cultural preferences with many pros and cons for both ways as per details found in the larger company guidelines. Google isn't necessarily right, just because it is Google! This holds true for any guidelines.
Avoid burying your head in the sand too much and loosely establishing your entire system of understanding on anecdotal examples and opinions.
Is it imperative that you establish solid reasoning for everything. If it scales for you, or your team and/our your customers and makes sense for new and seasoned devs (if you are in a team environment), nice one.
Both representations are useful. I had used singular for convenience for quite some time, inflection can be difficult. My experience in developing strictly singular REST APIs, the developers consuming the endpoint lack certainty in what the shape of the result may be. I now prefer to use the term that best describes the shape of the response.
If all of your resources are top level, then you can get away with singular representations. Avoiding inflection is a big win.
If you are doing any sort of deep linking to represent queries on relations, then developers writing against your API can be aided by having a stricter convention.
My convention is that each level of depth in a URI is describing an interaction with the parent resource, and the full URI should implicitly describe what is being retrieved.
Suppose we have the following model.
interface User {
<string>id;
<Friend[]>friends;
<Manager>user;
}
interface Friend {
<string>id;
<User>user;
...<<friendship specific props>>
}
If I needed to provide a resource that allows a client to get the manager of a particular friend of a particular user, it might look something like:
GET /users/{id}/friends/{friendId}/manager
The following are some more examples:
GET /users - list the user resources in the global users collection
POST /users - create a new user in the global users collection
GET /users/{id} - retrieve a specific user from the global users collection
GET /users/{id}/manager - get the manager of a specific user
GET /users/{id}/friends - get the list of friends of a user
GET /users/{id}/friends/{friendId} - get a specific friend of a user
LINK /users/{id}/friends - add a friend association to this user
UNLINK /users/{id}/friends - remove a friend association from this user
Notice how each level maps to a parent that can be acted upon. Using different parents for the same object is counterintuitive. Retrieving a resource at GET /resource/123 leaves no indication that creating a new resource should be done at POST /resources
To me plurals manipulate the collection, whereas singulars manipulate the item inside that collection.
Collection allows the methods GET / POST / DELETE
Item allows the methods GET / PUT / DELETE
For example
POST on /students will add a new student in the school.
DELETE on /students will remove all the students in the school.
DELETE on /student/123 will remove student 123 from the school.
It might feel like unimportant but some engineers sometimes forget the id. If the route was always plural and performed a DELETE, you might accidentally wipe your data. Whereas missing the id on the singular will return a 404 route not found.
To further expand the example if the API was supposed to expose multiple schools, then something like
DELETE on /school/abc/students will remove all the students in the school abc.
Choosing the right word sometimes is a challenge on its own, but I like to maintain plurality for the collection. E.g. cart_items or cart/items feels right. In contrast deleting cart, deletes the cart object it self and not the items within the cart ;).
How about:
/resource/ (not /resource)
/resource/ means it's a folder contains something called "resource", it's a "resouce" folder.
And also I think the naming convention of database tables is the same, for example, a table called 'user' is a "user table", it contains something called "user".
Just be consistent.
Use either singular:
POST /resource
PUT /resource/123
GET /resource/123
or plural:
POST /resources
PUT /resources/123
GET /resources/123
I prefer to use both plural (/resources) and singular (/resource/{id}) because I think that it more clearly separates the logic between working on the collection of resources and working on a single resource.
As an important side-effect of this, it can also help to prevent somebody using the API wrongly. For example, consider the case where a user wrongly tries to get a resource by specifying the Id as a parameter like this:
GET /resources?Id=123
In this case, where we use the plural version, the server will most likely ignore the Id parameter and return the list of all resources. If the user is not careful, he will think that the call was successful and use the first resource in the list.
On the other hand, when using the singular form:
GET /resource?Id=123
the server will most likely return an error because the Id is not specified in the right way, and the user will have to realize that something is wrong.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I'm currently designing and implementing a RESTful API in PHP. However, I have been unsuccessful implementing my initial design.
GET /users # list of users
GET /user/1 # get user with id 1
POST /user # create new user
PUT /user/1 # modify user with id 1
DELETE /user/1 # delete user with id 1
So far pretty standard, right?
My problem is with the first one GET /users. I was considering sending parameters in the request body to filter the list. This is because I want to be able to specify complex filters without getting a super long url, like:
GET /users?parameter1=value1¶meter2=value2¶meter3=value3¶meter4=value4
Instead I wanted to have something like:
GET /users
# Request body:
{
"parameter1": "value1",
"parameter2": "value2",
"parameter3": "value3",
"parameter4": "value4"
}
which is much more readable and gives you great possibilities to set complex filters.
Anyway, file_get_contents('php://input') didn't return the request body for GET requests. I also tried http_get_request_body(), but the shared hosting that I'm using doesn't have pecl_http. Not sure it would have helped anyway.
I found this question and realized that GET probably isn't supposed to have a request body. It was a bit inconclusive, but they advised against it.
So now I'm not sure what to do. How do you design a RESTful search/filtering function?
I suppose I could use POST, but that doesn't seem very RESTful.
The best way to implement a RESTful search is to consider the search itself to be a resource. Then you can use the POST verb because you are creating a search. You do not have to literally create something in a database in order to use a POST.
For example:
Accept: application/json
Content-Type: application/json
POST http://example.com/people/searches
{
"terms": {
"ssn": "123456789"
},
"order": { ... },
...
}
You are creating a search from the user's standpoint. The implementation details of this are irrelevant. Some RESTful APIs may not even need persistence. That is an implementation detail.
If you use the request body in a GET request, you're breaking the REST principle, because your GET request won't be able to be cached, because cache system uses only the URL.
What's worse, your URL can't be bookmarked, because the URL doesn't contain all the information needed to redirect the user to this page.
Use URL or Query parameters instead of request body parameters, e.g.:
/myapp?var1=xxxx&var2=xxxx
/myapp;var1=xxxx/resource;var2=xxxx
In fact, the HTTP RFC 7231 says that:
A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics; sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request.
For more information take a look here.
It seems that resource filtering/searching can be implemented in a RESTful way. The idea is to introduce a new endpoint called /filters/ or /api/filters/.
Using this endpoint filter can be considered as a resource and hence created via POST method. This way - of course - body can be used to carry all the parameters as well as complex search/filter structures can be created.
After creating such filter there are two possibilities to get the search/filter result.
A new resource with unique ID will be returned along with 201 Created status code. Then using this ID a GET request can be made to /api/users/ like:
GET /api/users/?filterId=1234-abcd
After new filter is created via POST it won't reply with 201 Created but at once with 303 SeeOther along with Location header pointing to /api/users/?filterId=1234-abcd. This redirect will be automatically handled via underlying library.
In both scenarios two requests need to be made to get the filtered results - this may be considered as a drawback, especially for mobile applications. For mobile applications I'd use single POST call to /api/users/filter/.
How to keep created filters?
They can be stored in DB and used later on. They can also be stored in some temporary storage e.g. redis and have some TTL after which they will expire and will be removed.
What are the advantages of this idea?
Filters, filtered results are cacheable and can be even bookmarked.
I think you should go with request parameters but only as long as there isn't an appropriate HTTP header to accomplish what you want to do. The HTTP specification does not explicitly say, that GET can not have a body. However this paper states:
By convention, when GET method is
used, all information required to
identify the resource is encoded in
the URI. There is no convention in
HTTP/1.1 for a safe interaction (e.g.,
retrieval) where the client supplies
data to the server in an HTTP entity
body rather than in the query part of
a URI. This means that for safe
operations, URIs may be long.
As I'm using a laravel/php backend I tend to go with something like this:
/resource?filters[status_id]=1&filters[city]=Sydney&page=2&include=relatedResource
PHP automatically turns [] params into an array, so in this example I'll end up with a $filter variable that holds an array/object of filters, along with a page and any related resources I want eager loaded.
If you use another language, this might still be a good convention and you can create a parser to convert [] to an array.
FYI: I know this is a bit late but for anyone who is interested.
Depends on how RESTful you want to be, you will have to implement your own filtering strategies as the HTTP spec is not very clear on this. I'd like to suggest url-encoding all the filter parameters e.g.
GET api/users?filter=param1%3Dvalue1%26param2%3Dvalue2
I know it's ugly but I think it's the most RESTful way to do it and should be easy to parse on the server side :)
Don't fret too much if your initial API is fully RESTful or not (specially when you are just in the alpha stages). Get the back-end plumbing to work first. You can always do some sort of URL transformation/re-writing to map things out, refining iteratively until you get something stable enough for widespread testing ("beta").
You can define URIs whose parameters are encoded by position and convention on the URIs themselves, prefixed by a path you know you'll always map to something. I don't know PHP, but I would assume that such a facility exists (as it exists in other languages with web frameworks):
.ie. Do a "user" type of search with param[i]=value[i] for i=1..4 on store #1 (with value1,value2,value3,... as a shorthand for URI query parameters):
1) GET /store1/search/user/value1,value2,value3,value4
or
2) GET /store1/search/user,value1,value2,value3,value4
or as follows (though I would not recommend it, more on that later)
3) GET /search/store1,user,value1,value2,value3,value4
With option 1, you map all URIs prefixed with /store1/search/user to the search handler (or whichever the PHP designation) defaulting to do searches for resources under store1 (equivalent to /search?location=store1&type=user.
By convention documented and enforced by the API, parameters values 1 through 4 are separated by commas and presented in that order.
Option 2 adds the search type (in this case user) as positional parameter #1. Either option is just a cosmetic choice.
Option 3 is also possible, but I don't think I would like it. I think the ability of search within certain resources should be presented in the URI itself preceding the search itself (as if indicating clearly in the URI that the search is specific within the resource.)
The advantage of this over passing parameters on the URI is that the search is part of the URI (thus treating a search as a resource, a resource whose contents can - and will - change over time.) The disadvantage is that parameter order is mandatory.
Once you do something like this, you can use GET, and it would be a read-only resource (since you can't POST or PUT to it - it gets updated when it's GET'ed). It would also be a resource that only comes to exist when it is invoked.
One could also add more semantics to it by caching the results for a period of time or with a DELETE causing the cache to be deleted. This, however, might run counter to what people typically use DELETE for (and because people typically control caching with caching headers.)
How you go about it would be a design decision, but this would be the way I'd go about. It is not perfect, and I'm sure there will be cases where doing this is not the best thing to do (specially for very complex search criteria).