asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Till Westmann" <>
Subject Re: New Asterix REST API design
Date Fri, 15 Apr 2016 21:37:46 GMT
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 
     both, the parameter and the Accept header, as it’s sometimes much 
     convenient to pass a parameter than a HTTP header. However, I think 
     the HTTP header should override the parameter if they conflict.
   - "execute-query" could be renamed to "execute-statement" to be 
     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 
     how to parse each field (either as a URI or as an array).
   - Inside of the "metrics" object I would only expect simple numbers. 
     the plans we could have another top-level field ("plan"?) an object 
     contains the different plans ..
   - It would also be nice to add a new top-level field for warnings. 
     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 
     but not understood by the server is simply ignored).



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: 
> <>.
> 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

View raw message