I wonder when the time will come when putting "API version numbers" into URIs will feel as wrong to everyone as using GET unsafely does
6
18
8
@stilkov @kellabyte version numbers in URIs is awesome; any service that does not do that (or similar/equivalent) is borked.
1
@mdennis @stilkov If you broke (not additive) contract of a resource is it really the same resource anymore? Why invalidate all resources?
1
@kellabyte @mdennis @stilkov you don't invalidate them, they stay under /vX and continue to work under that contract
1
@faltering @mdennis @stilkov IMO unnecessary. We have formats that tolerate additive changes & if A no longer resembles B its not a version.
2
Replying to @kellabyte
@kellabyte @faltering @mdennis +1. If it's compatible, no need to change its name; if not, little use in similar names

Dec 5, 2012 · 6:21 AM UTC

3
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @faltering @mdennis Being serious about consumer compatibility for your contracts takes discipline. Ex. Don’t rename just because.
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @kellabyte @faltering @mdennis what does compatible mean? Even very small changes can break clients You never know on seever side.
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @kellabyte @faltering @mdennis only clients can claim compatibility…
1