The Restful Objects specification defines a set of RESTful resources, and corresponding JSON representations, for accessing and manipulating a domain object model.
The table in 14.4.2 shows the (optional) size property on a collection and says ‘Discussed further below’ - which it isn’t. Stef didn’t implement size in RO.NET because he (wrongly) interpreted it to be tied to the (optional) value property.
He is now implementing size in RO.NET, because otherwise when you render a view of an object there’s no way to know if the collections are empty or not without fetching them. So this just needs a little clarification in the text for the next version.
Personally, I think there is a case for making size mandatory, but if you don’t want to make a breaking change to the spec then perhaps we should at least say that it is strongly recommended that a server implemented to avoid the need to … [as above].
danhaywood
commented
11 years ago
ver: 1.0.0 raised by: richardpawson
The table in 14.4.2 shows the (optional) size property on a collection and says ‘Discussed further below’ - which it isn’t. Stef didn’t implement size in RO.NET because he (wrongly) interpreted it to be tied to the (optional) value property.
He is now implementing size in RO.NET, because otherwise when you render a view of an object there’s no way to know if the collections are empty or not without fetching them. So this just needs a little clarification in the text for the next version.
Personally, I think there is a case for making size mandatory, but if you don’t want to make a breaking change to the spec then perhaps we should at least say that it is strongly recommended that a server implemented to avoid the need to … [as above].