On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:08:46 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm going off of stackoverflow's recommendations:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/319530/restful-authentication"To be honest, a session managed on the Server is not truly Stateless."
Nobody said you had to store the session on the server ;). It can be stored in a cookie.
But in any case, my understanding is that vibe's registerRestInterface
does not provide easy ways to get at the HTTP session data. I'm new to
vibe, so maybe I can do it in a better way.But I want to try and stay true to the definition. If it's almost REST,
but not quite, then I'll just use the web interface. It seems to be the
most usable. I don't want to fight the goals of vibe.d's REST system.
Yes. registerWebInterface seems to behave very similar to registerRestInterface and follows the REST pattern. This was all a reply to that sessions can't be RESTful. Or were you referring to that you can't use registerRestInterface and access sessions in vibe.d?
http://railscasts.com/episodes/270-authentication-in-rails-3-1?view=asciicast
Not too interested in RoR stuff, but thanks.
Well, I just want to show that indeed sessions can be RESTful. I could have avoiding giving an example, but I though it would be more useful with an example.
Ugh. I want as much introspection as possible :P
What I've done as a workaround is to rearrange my routes. Instead of
getWidget, I use the route widget/op, where op is the name of the
operation. It reads better to me, and is funky enough that it doesn't
have cringeworthy grammar in English :) If I need to leave the prefix, I
can just rename the path.I'll get used to it I suppose...
You do have a couple of options now. If none of them fits your need then the question is if you really should be using registerWebInterface.
Note, I'm not against adding an option to "leave the prefix". I'm just trying to help to come up with alternatives.
/Jacob Carlborg