Is this acceptable?

Bryan Kearney bkearney at redhat.com
Tue Mar 23 16:20:37 UTC 2010


On 03/23/2010 12:11 PM, Adam Young wrote:
> On 03/23/2010 12:02 PM, Justin Harris wrote:
>> ----- "Adam Young"<ayoung at redhat.com>   wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We are currently only going to unbind by entitlement ID.  Thus to do
>>> unbind by product
>>>
>>> GET http://host:8080/candlepin/consumers/<uuid>/entitlements and
>>> iterate
>>> through the collection to find the entitlement id for the given
>>> product
>>>
>>> Then:
>>>
>>> DELETE http://host:8080/candlepin/consumers/<uuid>/entitlements/<id>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer it if instead the first step were:
>>>
>>> GET http://host:8080/candlepin/consumers/<uuid>/products/<id>
>>>
>>> Which would return a page with entitlement ID on it.
>>>
>> To sidestep your original question entirely...
>> This feels like we are going too far down the hierarchy.
>>
>> I would think that the first call is good, then for the second:
>> DELETE http://host:8080/candlepin/entitlements/<id>
>>
> I mis-stated.  What you wrote is  what is actually done.
>
>> So with the first GET, you are requesting the collection of entitlements that are
>> entitled to the specified consumer, but when dealing with a specific entitlement by id, just use
>> the "global" collection to reference it.
>>
>> Bryan - is this consistent with HATEOAS?


Given my 12 seconds of research, I think so.

-- bk



More information about the candlepin mailing list