What is the best way to combine a GET and POST method in a middleware api?
I have to create a middleware API which a functionality to check for a key present in my database. If the key exists then it should simply fetch it(GET method). If not, then the API should create the key and its value in the database and return that(POST method). So since we have 2 fundamentally different methods being combined in this API, is it correct to do so? What should be the best way to design such API?
node.js rest api http
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
add a comment |
I have to create a middleware API which a functionality to check for a key present in my database. If the key exists then it should simply fetch it(GET method). If not, then the API should create the key and its value in the database and return that(POST method). So since we have 2 fundamentally different methods being combined in this API, is it correct to do so? What should be the best way to design such API?
node.js rest api http
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
add a comment |
I have to create a middleware API which a functionality to check for a key present in my database. If the key exists then it should simply fetch it(GET method). If not, then the API should create the key and its value in the database and return that(POST method). So since we have 2 fundamentally different methods being combined in this API, is it correct to do so? What should be the best way to design such API?
node.js rest api http
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
I have to create a middleware API which a functionality to check for a key present in my database. If the key exists then it should simply fetch it(GET method). If not, then the API should create the key and its value in the database and return that(POST method). So since we have 2 fundamentally different methods being combined in this API, is it correct to do so? What should be the best way to design such API?
node.js rest api http
node.js rest api http
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
asked Nov 25 '18 at 6:40
Abhishek SinghAbhishek Singh
61
61
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Don't combine them.
Return zero results from your GET method if you the record doesn't exist. Then in the client, if you receive zero results, POST the needed information to another API endpoint.
Combining the two ideas into one will create a hard to understand system. Your system should be deterministic, i.e. you can always know the result of every call before you call it.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
add a comment |
One way to look at your API is to forget about the underlying database, but think about how an API client uses it.
If an API client does a GET request, 2 things happen:
- The existing record is returned
- A new record is created and is returned
A client might not actually care if 1 or 2 happened. For the perspective of the client, it might look like the resource always existed (even if it was technically just created).
So as long as there's no extra information that must be sent along with a POST request, it might be fine to use a GET request for both cases.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
add a comment |
I don't know about your situation, typically it is best to have your get and post seperated. Though, if your client thinks that it needs to create a record and then posts the data, i dont see the problem with returning the resource and a 409 for the resource already existing. Here is a similar question HTTP response code for POST when resource already exists
Then the client can handle the 409 differently or the same as a 200 depending on your needs.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53465258%2fwhat-is-the-best-way-to-combine-a-get-and-post-method-in-a-middleware-api%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Don't combine them.
Return zero results from your GET method if you the record doesn't exist. Then in the client, if you receive zero results, POST the needed information to another API endpoint.
Combining the two ideas into one will create a hard to understand system. Your system should be deterministic, i.e. you can always know the result of every call before you call it.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
add a comment |
Don't combine them.
Return zero results from your GET method if you the record doesn't exist. Then in the client, if you receive zero results, POST the needed information to another API endpoint.
Combining the two ideas into one will create a hard to understand system. Your system should be deterministic, i.e. you can always know the result of every call before you call it.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
add a comment |
Don't combine them.
Return zero results from your GET method if you the record doesn't exist. Then in the client, if you receive zero results, POST the needed information to another API endpoint.
Combining the two ideas into one will create a hard to understand system. Your system should be deterministic, i.e. you can always know the result of every call before you call it.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
Don't combine them.
Return zero results from your GET method if you the record doesn't exist. Then in the client, if you receive zero results, POST the needed information to another API endpoint.
Combining the two ideas into one will create a hard to understand system. Your system should be deterministic, i.e. you can always know the result of every call before you call it.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:09
Michael McQuadeMichael McQuade
1,1671019
1,1671019
add a comment |
add a comment |
One way to look at your API is to forget about the underlying database, but think about how an API client uses it.
If an API client does a GET request, 2 things happen:
- The existing record is returned
- A new record is created and is returned
A client might not actually care if 1 or 2 happened. For the perspective of the client, it might look like the resource always existed (even if it was technically just created).
So as long as there's no extra information that must be sent along with a POST request, it might be fine to use a GET request for both cases.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
add a comment |
One way to look at your API is to forget about the underlying database, but think about how an API client uses it.
If an API client does a GET request, 2 things happen:
- The existing record is returned
- A new record is created and is returned
A client might not actually care if 1 or 2 happened. For the perspective of the client, it might look like the resource always existed (even if it was technically just created).
So as long as there's no extra information that must be sent along with a POST request, it might be fine to use a GET request for both cases.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
add a comment |
One way to look at your API is to forget about the underlying database, but think about how an API client uses it.
If an API client does a GET request, 2 things happen:
- The existing record is returned
- A new record is created and is returned
A client might not actually care if 1 or 2 happened. For the perspective of the client, it might look like the resource always existed (even if it was technically just created).
So as long as there's no extra information that must be sent along with a POST request, it might be fine to use a GET request for both cases.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
One way to look at your API is to forget about the underlying database, but think about how an API client uses it.
If an API client does a GET request, 2 things happen:
- The existing record is returned
- A new record is created and is returned
A client might not actually care if 1 or 2 happened. For the perspective of the client, it might look like the resource always existed (even if it was technically just created).
So as long as there's no extra information that must be sent along with a POST request, it might be fine to use a GET request for both cases.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
answered Nov 25 '18 at 7:17
EvertEvert
41.8k1571126
41.8k1571126
add a comment |
add a comment |
I don't know about your situation, typically it is best to have your get and post seperated. Though, if your client thinks that it needs to create a record and then posts the data, i dont see the problem with returning the resource and a 409 for the resource already existing. Here is a similar question HTTP response code for POST when resource already exists
Then the client can handle the 409 differently or the same as a 200 depending on your needs.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
add a comment |
I don't know about your situation, typically it is best to have your get and post seperated. Though, if your client thinks that it needs to create a record and then posts the data, i dont see the problem with returning the resource and a 409 for the resource already existing. Here is a similar question HTTP response code for POST when resource already exists
Then the client can handle the 409 differently or the same as a 200 depending on your needs.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
add a comment |
I don't know about your situation, typically it is best to have your get and post seperated. Though, if your client thinks that it needs to create a record and then posts the data, i dont see the problem with returning the resource and a 409 for the resource already existing. Here is a similar question HTTP response code for POST when resource already exists
Then the client can handle the 409 differently or the same as a 200 depending on your needs.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
I don't know about your situation, typically it is best to have your get and post seperated. Though, if your client thinks that it needs to create a record and then posts the data, i dont see the problem with returning the resource and a 409 for the resource already existing. Here is a similar question HTTP response code for POST when resource already exists
Then the client can handle the 409 differently or the same as a 200 depending on your needs.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
answered Nov 25 '18 at 13:01
unfloresunflores
971723
971723
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53465258%2fwhat-is-the-best-way-to-combine-a-get-and-post-method-in-a-middleware-api%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
