hateoas

Trying to figure out a pattern for how to handle relationships when using a hypermedia based microservices based on Spring Data Rest or HATEOAS. If you have service A (Instructor) and Service B (Course) each exist as an a stand alone app. What is the preferred method for establishing a relationship between the two services. In a manner that does not require columns for IDs of the foreign service. It would be possible for each service to have many other services that need to communicate in the same manor. Possible solution (Not sure a correct path) Each service has a second table with a

As the title says, I have a resource object Product extending ResourceSupport . However, the responses I receive have the property "_links" instead of "links" and have a different structure. { "productId" : 1, "name" : "2", "_links" : { "self" : { "href" : "http://localhost:8080/products/1" } } } Based on the HATEOAS Reference , the expected is: { "productId" : 1, "name" : "2", "links" : [ { "rel" : "self" "href" : "http://localhost:8080/products/1" } ] } Was this intended? Is there a way to change it, or at leas the "link" if not the structure? I added the selfLink through the following

I am in the early stages of planning a REST api, and I would like for it to adhere to the HATEOAS constraint of REST. But I would also like to provide a JSON format. So my question is if there are conventions out there to represent links and forms in JSON. I have found examples of links, and it looks like this is a pretty common way of representing links: "links": [ {"rel": "self", "href":"http://example.org/entity/1"}, {"rel": "friends", "href":"http://example.org/entity/1/friends"}] Representing forms on the other hand, is not something that I have seen much of. I was thinking that perhaps

In designing a RESTful Web Service using HATEOAS, what are the pros and cons of showing a link as a complete URL (" http://server:port/application/customers/1234 ") vs. just the path ("/application/customers/1234")? RayLuo There is a subtle conceptual ambiguity when people say "relative uri". By RFC3986's definition , a generic uri contains: URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty / path-absolute / path-rootless / path-empty foo://example.com:8042/over/there?name=ferret#nose \_/ \______________/\_________/ \_________/ \__/ | | | | |

To keep things simple and to avoid nameing collisions, I've been bundling links in my record resources like this... { id: 211, first_name: 'John', last_name: 'Lock', _links: [ { rel: 'self', href: 'htttp://example.com/people/211' } ] } However, I can't work out how to implement links in collections. I have spent a long time trawling around the web for examples and other than using the not so lean HAL I'm unable to reconcile my problem. [ {id:1,first_name:.....}, {id:2,first_name:.....}, {id:3,first_name:.....}, "_links": "Cant put a key value pair here because its an-array" ] Which means I

I'm currently reading "Rest in practice" book . I'm unable to understand the following terminology Hypermedia , hypermedia format, hypermedia controls, Domain application protocol. The author was suggesting need for domain specific hypermedia format. I could hardly understand those. I googled these terms but couldnt find a right answer. Can anyone explain these terminologies and why we need domain specific hypermedia formats instead of application/xml ? Hypermedia = the fact that client and server are talking in terms of some a uniform representation eg: hyper links. HyperMedia Control = A