asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Till Westmann" <ti...@apache.org>
Subject Re: New Asterix REST API design
Date Sat, 16 Apr 2016 03:16:25 GMT
Yes, indeed the warning are feature-creep and not essential. We have 
been
talking about compiler warnings for along time, but we don’t have them 
so
far. The warnings that we could show for the HTTP API are warnings about
unused or ignored parameters but, again, they are not essential. It'll 
be
perfectly fine to add that at a later time when there's a concrete 
need/use
for them.

Also, thinking about it a bit more, I'm even more convinced that it's 
the
better approach to have different fields for results and result handles 
as
the client can know if it needs another hop just by looking a the 
response,
without knowing what the request was.

Cheers,
Till

On 15 Apr 2016, at 17:32, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:

> Till,
>
> All the comments make sense to me except for warnings. I was 
> struggling to remember anything in Asterix, which would resemble the 
> warnings described by you.
> As a future extension we could support that, but in this document I 
> was trying to reflect current state of Asterix functionality + some 
> extensions which were on horizon for a long time and are really 
> needed.
>
>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:37, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ildar,
>>
>> thanks for writing all of this up!
>>
>> A few comments/proposals:
>>
>> - Request:
>>  - For the "format" parameter, I think that it would be nice to 
>> support
>>    both, the parameter and the Accept header, as it’s sometimes 
>> much more
>>    convenient to pass a parameter than a HTTP header. However, I 
>> think that
>>    the HTTP header should override the parameter if they conflict.
>>  - "execute-query" could be renamed to "execute-statement" to be 
>> consistent
>>    with the "statement" parameter.
>> - Response:
>>  - I'm wondering if "results" should be able to get a URI for the 
>> handle or
>>    if we should have another field in the response for that (e.g.
>>    "handle"). The advantage of 2 fields would be that the consumer 
>> knows
>>    how to parse each field (either as a URI or as an array).
>>  - Inside of the "metrics" object I would only expect simple numbers. 
>> For
>>    the plans we could have another top-level field ("plan"?) an 
>> object that
>>    contains the different plans ..
>>  - It would also be nice to add a new top-level field for warnings. 
>> That
>>    could be used to report warnings from the engine that evaluates 
>> the
>>    statement. And it could also be used to report unused parameters
>>    (assuming that the default behavior for a parameter that is passed 
>> in,
>>    but not understood by the server is simply ignored).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Till
>>
>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 15:23, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Devs,
>>>
>>> Recently there have been a number of conversations about the future 
>>> of our REST (aka HTTP) API. I summarized these discussions in an 
>>> outline of the new API design: 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/New+HTTP+API+Design 
>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ASTERIXDB/New+HTTP+API+Design>.
>>> The need to refactor existing API came from different directions 
>>> (and from different people), and is explained in motivation section. 
>>> Thus I believe it’s about the time to take an effort and improve 
>>> existing API, so that it will not drag us down in the future. 
>>> However during the transition step I believe it would be better to 
>>> keep exiting API endpoints, so that we would not break people’s 
>>> current experimental setup.
>>>
>>> It would be good to know feedback from the folks, who have been 
>>> contributing to that part of the systems recently.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ildar
>
> Best regards,
> Ildar

Mime
View raw message