[rest-practices] ID as an attribute [was Re: [deltacloud-devel] Towards declaring the Deltacloud API stable]

[Bryan Kearney]

On 05/27/2010 06:29 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 08:32 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>> On 05/12/2010 05:44 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 21:47 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Related, with the RHEV-M API we're experimenting with making both the
>>>> id and href attributes, which would work out nice here:
>>>>
>>>>     GET /api/images HTTP/1.1
>>>>
>>>>     <images>
>>>>       <image id="1234" href="/api/images/1234"/>
>>>>       <image id="9876" href="/api/images/9876"/>
>>>>       ...
>>>>     </images>
>>>>
>>>> rather than:
>>>>
>>>>     GET /api/images HTTP/1.1
>>>>
>>>>     <images>
>>>>       <image href="/api/images/1234">
>>>>         <id>1234</id>
>>>>       </image>
>>>>       <image href="/api/images/9876">
>>>>         <id>9876</id>
>>>>       </image>
>>>>       ...
>>>>     </images>
>>>
>>> Just wanted to bring this up again - it got lost in the mix
>>>
>>> I don't feel very strongly about it either way, but I do prefer:
>>>
>>>     POST /storagedomains/1234/attachments HTTP/1.1
>>>
>>>     <attachment><datacenter id="5678"/></attachment>
>>>
>>> over:
>>>
>>>     POST /storagedomains/1234/attachments HTTP/1.1
>>>
>>>     <attachment><datacenter><id>"5678"</id></datacenter></attachment>
>>
>>
>> This may be a Java centric issue, but will the former result in json
>> which looks like:
>>
>> {datacenter: {@id = "5678}}
>>
>> That is kinda ugly, which is why I have tried to use elements where
>> possible. I do not remember if it was Jersey or RestEasy which did this.
>
> It'd be nice if we avoid letting JSON mapping issues dictate the XML
> design (and vice versa) ...
>
> Is there any way to easily customize the JSON mapping so that these
> attributes can be serialized like other properties?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
We just moved to jettiso, so I will take a look. I know on our side.. 
JSON is the preferred transport.. XML is the subordinate. I assume for 
you guys it is the other way around?

-- bk