Home/ Questions/Q 6214467
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-24T06:52:53+00:00

I just finished reading Restful Web Services and Nobody Understands REST or HTTP and

  • 0

I just finished reading Restful Web Services and Nobody Understands REST or HTTP and am trying to design an API with a RESTful design.

I’ve noticed a few patterns in API URI design:

http://api.example.com/users
http://example.com/api/users
http://example.com/users

Assume that these designs properly use Accept and Content-type headers for content negotiations between XHTML, JSON, or any format.

Are these URI’s a matter of a pure RESTful implementation vs implicit content negotiation?

My thoughts are that by explicitly using API in the URI is so that a client will expect a data format that is not inherently human pleasing hypermedia and can be more easily consumed without explicitly setting an Accept header. In other words, the API is implying that you expect JSON or XML rather than XHTML.

Is this a matter of separating resource representations
logically on the server side?

The only justification I can come up with for why someone would design their URI’s with an API subdomain is because, based off my assumption that this is a scaling technique, it should make routing request load easier in a multi-tiered server infrastructure. Maybe situations exist where reverse proxies are stripping the headers? I don’t know. Different servers handling different representations?

Maybe a subdomain is used for external consumers only so that the server avoids the overhead from internal usage. Rate limiting?

Am I missing a point?

My proposed design would attempt to follow RESTful practices by setting appropriate headers, using HTTP verbs appropriately and representing resources in a fashion that I feel including ‘API’ in the URI would be redundant.

Why would someone design a RESTful API with ‘API’ in the URI?

Or could they? Maybe my problem with not understanding this design is that it doesn’t matter as long as it follows some combination of specification which may not lead to a RESTful API implementation but close? There is more than one way to skin a keyboard cat.
HATEOAS related?

Update: While researching this topic I have come to the conclusion that it’s important to consider ideas from REST but not to treat it as a religion. Thus, whether or not to have ‘api’ in the URI is more of a design decision than a steadfast rule. If you plan to expose your website’s API publicly it would be a good idea to use an api subdomain to help deal with the application’s logic. I hope that someone will contribute their insight for others to learn from.

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    This is my understanding and point of view about your question :

    Are these URI’s a matter of a pure RESTful implementation vs implicit
    content negotiation?

    No, they are not part of any official documentation (that I know of), and are usually at the developper/team standards discretion. For example, Zend Framework uses some utility classes to detect XHR requests and how responses should be returned. Granted, ZF is not pure RESTful design (or most PHP application as a matter of fact), but it is still possible to write such designs even in PHP.

    I have often seen api being used in urls when the returned data expected is indeed not meant to be used as is for display to the end user. However it is usually a design decision and not necessarily an implied standard.

    Is this a matter of separating resource representations logically on
    the server side?

    More or less. For example, when performing a PUT request, for example, the interface does not necessarily need to be entirely refreshed, and often a simple response message is good enough. While this response message is part of the view, it is not the view. So, for example, http://domay.com/users/ would return the interface to manage users (or whatever), http://domain.com/users/api would perform operations and return interface updates (without a page reload).

    Am I missing a point?

    Weell, no. Since it is a design decision to use or not api in the URL, you’re not missing anything here. With the proper headers, 

    http://domain.com/users/api/get
http://domain.com/users/get
http://domain.com/users/

    can all be valid RESTful requests.

    Why would someone design a RESTful API with ‘API’ in the URI?

    Simply put, to have an URL naming convention. So that, when looking at a request in logs, documentation, etc. One will understand it’s purpose.

    • 0