-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Secure Search HSDA #86
Comments
Glad to see this supported. I'm curious why we need a separate URI for this, though. Couldn't we define that What's the benefit of describing this as a unique endpoint? |
My understanding is that GET should be used for all idempotent requests, and any search is idempotent. http://restcookbook.com/HTTP%20Methods/idempotency/ A GET can have content either in the URL or in the BODY of the request. POST doesn't mean "there's content in the BODY" - it means "This request is going to issue a data change to the resource I'm pointing to." At least, that is my understanding. |
@NeilMcKechnie yes, as for as common REST practices and semantics are concerned, then As far as the spec is concerned, GET requests should not include a message body. While some servers support this, not all do, and (as per the discussion here), even if a message body is sent for a GET request, it should be ignored. So whatever we do, we're working around the edges of the "spec" and in the land of "how folks make RESTful interfaces work for real-life use-cases" Using POST to initiate searches with secure params make sense to me, and I've seen many APIs do this. I've heard people align this to RESTful principles by imagining a "search" object that represents a specific search. You create a new search request by POSTing to that collection, and then you could even |
Alrighty, thanks for clarifying @boxfoot ! |
I do not have any reason to challenge it being available as POST on existing path, over adding a new path. @boxfoot recommendations seems logical. |
Adding a secure search to HSDA, allowing POST searches using definition schema as BODY.
Issue: #46 : #46 (comment)
OpenAPI: https://gist.github.com/kinlane/e27557e87a5007b6e0014d9437b2bcc9
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: