Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Association Relationship #1

Open
kshychko opened this issue Jun 5, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Association Relationship #1

kshychko opened this issue Jun 5, 2019 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@kshychko
Copy link
Contributor

kshychko commented Jun 5, 2019

@onthebreeze , simple Association Relationship is not listed in the current specification. Is this type of relationships going to be supported by the specification for API Serialisation or will be just ignored?

@kshychko kshychko added the question Further information is requested label Jun 5, 2019
@onthebreeze
Copy link
Contributor

My feeling is that, aside from the directed association between interfaces (representing a hateoas link), we should ignore general class-class relationships for API generation (maybe not for JSON-LD generation though). That's because I see a common use case being the import of a large E-R model like the core component library or some large system database model - and default behaviour to follow all those relationships might lead to messy API specs. I'm thinking it's better that the modeller deliberately changes simple relationships to aggregations or compositions and gets an output better aligned with design intent.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants