[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rest-practices] Modelling membership

On 05/04/2010 10:15 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 09:28 -0400, Bob McWhirter wrote:
3rd resource: "membership"

Sometimes called an association object.

In our model, I'm sure we end up with code to pair a User to a Group.
Ta-da!  Expose as REST.  Adjusting memberships now only affect the
membership object you add or delete, no race conditions of updating a
"list" or "roster" from either User or Group end of things.

I'd probably veer towards Membership being a top-level object also,
owned by neither User nor Group, but linked to from either, as a
collection of pointers to the actual Membership resources.

Nice idea, thanks

We'll probably do this as a collection of "attachment" resources owned
by a storage domain - each attachment just includes a reference to a
data center and the status of the storage domain within that data center

I'd prefer this approach to having it toplevel, since it means one side
of the relationship is implicit

I like the idea, but if you make it under a top level item, doesn't this degrade to /groups/{uid}/user?

-- bk

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]