[aerogear-dev] REST-based API Versioning

[Daniel Bevenius]

+1 For using the Accept header to specify the version in the media type.


On 28 August 2014 07:50, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> for the 1.1.x (master) we are potentially doing some changes on the
> Sender-API (see [1]).
>
> However, for backwards compatibility we need to think about API versioning.
>
> 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 ?
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> [1] 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140828/ad46fc95/attachment-0001.html