[jheising]

Agreed, in the code-readability sense it's a little on the strange side, but I wouldn't call it completely nonsense either. My thinking behind the design was that developers are a lot easier to deal with than end-users/laypeople who you might rely on to help debug things. Besides, it's easy enough to write wrapper functions or use DEFINE (in the case of C/C++) to make the code more code-readability-friendly.

Nothing is perfect for everyone, and I think the response is probably the least important aspect of HAPI. The biggest bang for the buck in my mind is self documenting URLs and support for only HTTP-GET verbs. Just my $0.02 :)

[sunir]

I don't understand why you insist changing operations like create, update and delete should be HTTP GET. That is a security nightmare.

[IanCal]

It depends on what you want to support. I've done similar as I was working on platforms that didn't actually support POST/PUT/DELETE. However you then have to contend with misbehaving caching too.

[jheising]

Seriously? Look at the HTTP protocol and tell me you really believe that.

Their way:

DELETE /something HTTP/1.1

My way:

GET /delete/something HTTP/1.1

Do you really think one is more secure than the other?

[carbocation]

It also limits the request size to something like 4K.