Reputation
346
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
1 3 9
Newest
 Necromancer
Impact
~36k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 28 votes cast
Jan
5
comment Is it OK to partially change a collection with PUT or DELETE?
Similar question on SO stackoverflow.com/questions/411462/…
Jan
5
comment Is it OK to partially change a collection with PUT or DELETE?
Could the "extension" be more resource-oriented by making it products/collection which returns an 'envelope' of items and the envelope contents changed via a PUT? Like, "here's exactly how I want the items in the collection to be".
Dec
14
comment Writing Testable Code vs Avoiding Speculative Generality
"Not doing so" (using interfaces) doesn't automatically result in your classes being tightly-coupled. It just doesn't. E.g. in the .NET Framework, there is a Stream class, but there's no tight-coupling.
Nov
29
awarded  Necromancer
Aug
4
comment Writing Testable Code vs Avoiding Speculative Generality
Anywhere you read the term 'interface' you should substitute the term 'type'. Using an ordinary class does not preclude polymorphism.
Jul
12
awarded  Famous Question
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
Sep
10
awarded  Nice Question
Sep
10
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
I disagree. URLs with just IDs are hard to work with; its hard to remember from a list of them which one you might want to return to. Or whether there's going to be something inappropriate at the other end of the link. Chrome's address bar suggests on any part of the URL, too, which is useful.
Sep
10
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
Love the last idea.
Sep
9
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
In order to throw a 301, I'd need to be able to lookup the correct resource, thus I'd need a history.
Sep
9
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
This slug history is what I was considering. Since posting the question, I've noticed many big named sites that have a slug that is not checked, you can alter it to say anything. amazon.co.uk/Blah-Blah-Blah/dp/B004R276L8 works. StackExchange is clever since it 'corrects' and redirects the browser to ensure the right link is shown and shared.
Sep
9
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
Like Jon's answer, I think you're not wearing your UX hat when thinking about this. I want to increase the useability of the address. See my comment in the question: "I like the friendly URLs since you have an idea about what's on the end of the URL when you hover or see it in an email or document. It's better for SEO, or it used to be."
Sep
9
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
I think you're thinking about this from an API/site information architecture PoV. I was looking to introduce a generated friendly URL part to help humans and SEO. Apparently this is a common thing and goes by the name of 'slug'. The name is not being used for classification and is added (not dropped) to make a better UX with the URL and our site/brand.
Sep
8
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
Never knew the term slug before. I must have been under a rock. Geddit?
Sep
8
comment Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
If either of you want to give a proper answer, I'll vote up so you get the points. I'll let the votes come in and award the answer to the most-voted in a couple of days.
Sep
8
asked Providing friendly URLs for a website vs. realities of database IDs
Aug
19
awarded  Teacher
Aug
14
awarded  Yearling
Aug
14
awarded  Nice Question