People need both. REST works well for CRUD operations that don't have complex side effects or constraints. What's often missing in this is intent. I just want to do "the thing" to this particular account or whatever.
Personally I like to very selectively add RPC actions on top of the base resource. Tacking an RPC action onto the resource URI allows you to encapsulate the intent of the user's action, handle all the updates required server side, and then return the updated representation.
I almost always have both. I tend to use event sourcing and the intent is mandatory. There might be 20 reasons to modify one resource, each with its own list of side effects to later perform.
So it's usually POST resource/:id/action
and that's fine.
> So it's usually POST resource/:id/action and that's fine.
There's nothing wrong with that. It's not anti-REST or anything, assuming you satisfy the other REST constraints, ie. each request is self-contained and any stateful resources are designated by URLs.
As an aside, I'm personally not a huge fan of human-readable URLs because it encourages API consumers to rely on/construct URLs client-side, which is not REST.
I think a more properly-REST approach would be to PUT a representation of the resource with the action applied. That is, rather than POSTing to /resources/:id/close, one would PUT a closed version of the resource to /resources/:id.
I don't see why that would be more REST. POST is to be used for side-effecting operations, PUT is an optimization over POST for idempotent effectful operations.
Certainly a PUT solution might have some advantages for replayability in case of network partitions, but REST doesn't this choice dictate one way or the other.
> HiringSolved, a technology company that leverages artificial intelligence and machine learning to solve problems for talent acquisition practitioners...
I almost stopped reading at this opening sentence. We've got "leverage", the double base covering with "artificial intelligence and machines learning", and the coup de grâce, "talent aquisition practitioners."
I had the impression that it was a probing thing. Trying to figure out who in my friend list I'm interested in keeping up with. Annoying enough that I decided to uninstall the app.
This is such an important point. I'm living with a generic "group" feature in a SaaS app and it's a nightmare. It's been used by numerous clients for totally different things. These are the weeds that will choke your garden.
...or they will be the very thing that frees up your users to use them in creative ways without feeling hemmed in to a particular mindset.
We have the concept of 'tags' in our app, which are used by our users to delineate anything from company departments, social groups, locations, age bands etc. - basically anything they see fit. It saves us creating a mess of drop downs to try and cater for all edge cases, and they feel the freedom to think of them however they like.
Perhaps a larger animal. Detachable coupling of course and some sort of programmatic control of the beast. The coupling would include devices which would increase the concentration of life giving material and turn back less desirable properties of the blood.
I would ride upon a great blood engorged elephant and take pity upon all the unwashed goat tethered masses.
I storm through the seas like Poseidon himself, a conquering champion, grafted to the back of a 24-foot baby blue whale. Next time around, though, I'll ask the doc to position me in front of the blow hole. Rookie mistake.
You can't acquire Elon Musk. First, he's not going to be happy losing his independence. Second, to buy Tesla you can't just pay todays absurdly high price, you have to pay so much higher to convince virtually all of the non-Musk shareholders to vote for your offer.
And if you "win" that auction, Elon will probably just devote even more of his time and energy to SpaceX.
Jobs asked Apple to buy NeXT. When they did, he explicitly refused to return as an employee. He only changed his mind laster because they were such a mess and he had an emotional commitment to Apples success, because he founded them. And at the time, he only had one other major interest, Pixar, and it was mostly run by the Pixar folks, Jobs wasn't writing or directing movies or developing animation technology for them.
Purchasing Tesla is almost certainly a hostile takeover at an insane price tag. Elon Musk has no need of money or to sell the business, his highest priority is to be able to run it without being told what to do by anyone else. Elon Musk has no emotional connection to Apple, but has a huge one to SpaceX, which he is super actively involved in all strategic planning.
Tesla would be a terrible acquisition and there isn't enough money in the world to convince Elon to let Tim Cook be his boss, and to spend his time designing phones and computers instead of rockets and electric cars.
If Apple won the takeover bid, Elon would cash out his shares and pour the money into SpaceX and new businesses, and tell Apple to kiss his ass.
This is not true. They offer a service where they will add an FNSKU label to your products for .20/unit, which will mean your items will not be co-mingled. But as a seller, you can also apply the FNSKU to the items you send in and not be charged the additional .20/unit. It's up to the seller how they want to do it, but it's not a mandatory charge, just a convenience if you want Amazon to do it instead of yourself as the seller.
Personally I like to very selectively add RPC actions on top of the base resource. Tacking an RPC action onto the resource URI allows you to encapsulate the intent of the user's action, handle all the updates required server side, and then return the updated representation.