Some questions :
* If we go for the accept header and the consumer don't provide it, what do
we do ? Return an error or use implicitly the latest version ?
* What will be our deprecation policy ? Do we want keep maintaining all the
versions forever or let's say for 1.1 we still provide 1.0 and for 2.0 we
drop 1.0 ?
About the implementation :
* I like the suggested CDI solution, if possible.
* Erik also mentionned OSGI and I'm -9999^99 to introduce that techno
ps : I just read this blog post and it's really interesting :
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com>
+1 For using the Accept header to specify the version in the media
On 28 August 2014 07:50, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
> for the 1.1.x (master) we are potentially doing some changes on the
> Sender-API (see ).
> However, for backwards compatibility we need to think about API
> For REST APIs there are (IMO) two options:
> * accept header
> * URIs
> On our Face2Face meeting we briefly talked about this and I think the
> "accept header" solution was the one that had most fans. I think QMX added
> that it is better for migration. One thing we were not clear on (I think):
> What are HATEOS defined semantics?
> Besides the what (headers vs. URI), I think we should think about
> possible implementations, to switch different versions.
> Not sure, but wouldn't it be possible to inject an annotated
> SenderService into the RESTful endpoint, based on header values ?
> We could have a default impl (version 1.0.0) and an alternate one, that
> is injected if the accept header indicate API version 1.1
> Any thoughts ?
>  http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2014-August/008881.html
> Matthias Wessendorf
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev mailing list