[aerogear-dev] REST-based API Versioning

[Bruno Oliveira]

On 2014-08-28, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
> > daniel.bevenius at gmail.com> 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.
> >>
> > Why not but for how long do we return the "old" version by default ? (cf
> > my questions around deprecation)
> >
>
> yep - I am for that: looks like I forgot, and I think we had that on our
> face2face: no version == 1.0.0 (old)

I vote for return the latest, instead of something old. And specify old
versions if you want to.

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


--

abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914