I've really be trying to wrap my head around this as much as possible, but having a very difficult time doing so. Maybe I'm missing the obvious.
Given a typical REST API (with an idempotent update method and a create method):
http://www.domain.com/api/clients GET // returns all clients
http://www.domain.com/api/clients POST // create a new client
http://www.domain.com/api/clients/:id GET // returns single client
http://www.domain.com/api/clients/:id PUT // updates a single client - idempotent
http://www.domain.com/api/clients/:id DELETE // delete single client
If I create a standard resource with the following URL:
Client = $resource("http://www.domain.com/api/clients/:id")
Then I automatically get (where Client is the $resource and client is the returned entity):
Client.get()
Client.query()
Client.save()
client.$save()
client.$remove/delete()
The problem I have is by default there is no PUT
method to save (typically used to identify idempotent updates).
Am I misunderstanding something or is this a deficiency in Angular's API? I would have expected the $save()
to use a PUT
and not a POST
. The way it is currently structured, I have to create my own $update()
method definition and then rely on the developer not to accidentally use the $save()
method.
Am I structuring my API incorrectly? Should the REST API be structured differently?
You can simply specify the method in your resource like :
app.factory('someFactory', ['$resource', function($resource) {
return $resource('/api/:id', {
id: '@id'
}, {
update: {
method: 'PUT'
},
get: {
method: 'GET'
}
});
}]);
but I totally agree with $save being an odd verb for create and not update. This guy does too and it looks like he made a way to dual purpose the save by simply extending the object and checking for an id.