Re: Link relation types for non-GET links

[Mike Kelly <[e-mail]>]

Fair enough. It's worth bearing in mind the cache lifetime of the link rel
descriptions are likely to be relatively high compared to the resources
themselves; so the indirection could potentially reduce the size of the
responses as well as metadata noise in the responses.

But if you need/want this information inline, then you can attach it as a
properly to the given link object.

Cheers,
M

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Klaus Hartke <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mike Kelly wrote:
> > You can use a standard HAL link and a link relation if you ensure the
> link
> > relation is a URL which can be dereferenced to retrieve a
> machine-readable
> > description of the methods and messages that are possible for that link.
> > Just think of it as machine readable link relation documentation.
>
> That's an interesting idea. It basically adds a level of indirection,
> which should be useful if many links have the same machine-readable
> description of possible methods and payloads. However, I think I'd
> prefer including that description directly at the link, so a client
> does not have to dereference a URL to understand the link semantics.
>
> Klaus
>



-- 
Mike

http://twitter.com/mikekelly85
http://github.com/mikekelly
http://linkedin.com/in/mikekelly123