Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 4615982
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 22, 20262026-05-22T01:55:04+00:00 2026-05-22T01:55:04+00:00

I have a data versioning system implemented as a point-in-time architecture in some RDBMS.

  • 0

I have a data versioning system implemented as a point-in-time architecture in some RDBMS. I am writing a servlet based API to expose some functionality regarding this data. The API will return datapoints to the user, allow the user to tag data for removal, and allow a super user to accept or reject these data modification requests, also done via API calls.

Here’s the question. I have dealt with some large and noteworthy API with a very diverse feature set in which all API calls are HTTPS GETs. This is how I plan on doing this. I know I know, in a perfect world if you are developing a resource oriented product you should design an ROA implemented as a REST interface. However, the client really wishes to have a more hybrid RPC style interface for readability and low learning curve. If I do everything in terms of GET to get the API calls in the format the client wants, is this a bad thing? Is something going to come back and bite me in the rear end later? Are there bad implications for future API additions or maintenance? If there are some flagrant pitfalls the this approach, the client can swayed in another direction without too much fuss.

One of the reasons I don’t just want to do REST and use GET/POST/etc http verbs is that lower privilege users can only make change requests. These linger around until a higher privilege user okays/rejects them.

Example call:
somehost/?Method=GetOutlierData&SiteId=112-1&TimeInterval=2011-01-01_00:00:00–2011-01-01_23:59:59&ValidDate=2011-02-01_12:00:00&ReturnType=RecordId&Requester=13&Password=secret&ApiKey=19483

Response:
Return=0&RecordsIds=

Another place I’m not sure if what I am proposing is a good idea is authentication. Every call includes the calling user’s credentials (to enforce roles — only some API features are available to certain users). The API will only process calls from hosts on a whitelist, so the design of the API implies that the client will construct a single endpoint to route all their organizations requests through, and that this endpoint will supply the secret API key along with all API calls. This will prevent users from sending their own unapproved calls directly to the API. Their will be some rate limiting and banning features implemented internally to prevent intentional and accidental DoS. Since we are operating over SSL is this an adequate way to do things?

Example call:
somehost/?Method=blah&…&Requester=13&Password=secret&ApiKey=1298593

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-22T01:55:04+00:00Added an answer on May 22, 2026 at 1:55 am

    There’s nothing inherently ‘bad’ about using GET requests for non-idempotent operations, for example SOAP uses GET (or POST?) for all operations. Some web browsers, however, will view a link that uses GET as idempotent and try to pre-fetch it for you. This is a bad thing of course if that link was to perform a delete row on your back end database.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have data in a MySQL database. I am sending the user a URL
I have data coming from the database in the form of a DataSet .
I have data that looks like CUSTOMER, CUSTOMER_ID, PRODUCT ABC INC 1 XYX ABC
I have data from MySQL showing all organisations a customer got, with all details
I have data in this form, Article ID Company A Company B Company C
I have data from a table in a database (string) that contain text and
I have data that needs to be executed on a certain background thread. I
I have data that looks like this: entities id name 1 Apple 2 Orange
If I have data like this: Key Name 1 Dan 2 Tom 3 Jon
I often have data in Excel or text that I need to get into

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.