[aerogear-dev] REST-based API Versioning

[Bruno Oliveira]

On 2014-08-28, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> >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 ?
> Perhaps we can return the current version to not break any existing
> clients. New clients will need to provide an explicit version.

+1 on return the latest version

>
>
> On 28 August 2014 09:25, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > Sebi
> > ps : I just read this blog post and it's really interesting :
> > http://apiux.com/2013/05/14/api-versioning/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
> > daniel.bevenius at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >

> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--

abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914