Ask HN: Counter-arguments: Why should we go for a RESTful API?
Our business carries out work on behalf of clients (White labelled trade) - So we have an API where our clients can create a Customer Resource, provide a Quote for that Customer, Provide an actual proposal of work for that customer, and then schedule the work in.
I propose that Customers, Quotes and Proposals are our Resources
However, the delivery team argues that, as this is not an open API (It is for several partners right now but could rise to 1000+), we can simply go with things like /v1/SubmitProposal and /v1/RetrieveProposal rather than carry out all the separate REST operations, because as long as our clients can create business, what else do they really need? They have their own databases to save data in etc.
I'm struggling to articulate business benefits to going for a full REST API vs. functions specified in a REST-looking format. What are the advantages/disadvantages that I am missing?
4 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 18.7 ms ] threadIf third parties will need to use the API at any point I would use REST and follow Google's API design guidelines.
And be honest: the back end for handling either is the same. No reason the same code can't be used if/when you need `v2/proposals` with RESTful verbs.
The biggest benefit for "full" REST is that lots of tooling supports it and it might cut down on documentation time.
As presented, the argument for the status quo is centered around customers/clients/partners rather than a technical architecture. That seems decidedly more of a business case.
Good luck.