Deprecate /federation_resolvers/{{ID}}

["ocket8888@gmail.com" <oc...@gmail.com>]

I just opened a PR that adds deprecation notices to the response bodies
of requests to `/federation_resolvers/{{ID}}` and adds a DELETE method
handler to `/federation_resolvers`. That was the only method that
`/federation_resolvers/{{ID}}` handled, so with the handler addition to
`/federation_resolvers`, the former serves no purpose that the latter
cannot do equally well.

So is it cool if we deprecate it?

Re: [EXTERNAL] Deprecate /federation_resolvers/{{ID}}

[ocket 8888 <oc...@gmail.com>]

Sort of. I can't off the top of my head think of a route like `foo/{{ID}}`
that only supported DELETE that was deprecated in the past, but I'd argue
`/user/current/update` being deprecated in favor of the existing PUT
handler for `/user/current` is analogous.

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM Hoppal, Michael <Mi...@comcast.com>
wrote:

> Generally I would be +1 on the approach.
>
> My question would be have we taken the same approach on other similar
> endpoints? My hope would be to keep a consistent approach.
>
> For what is worth for the ones I have rewritten I did not take that
> approach. I left in the route that had just the DELETE verb with no
> deprecation.
>
>
> On 11/8/19, 5:28 PM, "ocket8888@gmail.com" <oc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I just opened a PR that adds deprecation notices to the response bodies
>     of requests to `/federation_resolvers/{{ID}}` and adds a DELETE method
>     handler to `/federation_resolvers`. That was the only method that
>     `/federation_resolvers/{{ID}}` handled, so with the handler addition to
>     `/federation_resolvers`, the former serves no purpose that the latter
>     cannot do equally well.
>
>     So is it cool if we deprecate it?
>
>
>

Re: [EXTERNAL] Deprecate /federation_resolvers/{{ID}}

[oc...@gmail.com]

Alright, I know it was over the weekend, but I'm gonna take my single
"+1" and run with it. The PR will still be open for review likely for
at least the rest of the day so if anyone still has concerns there's
still time.

Re: [EXTERNAL] Deprecate /federation_resolvers/{{ID}}

["Hoppal, Michael" <Mi...@comcast.com>]

Generally I would be +1 on the approach.

My question would be have we taken the same approach on other similar endpoints? My hope would be to keep a consistent approach.

For what is worth for the ones I have rewritten I did not take that approach. I left in the route that had just the DELETE verb with no deprecation.


On 11/8/19, 5:28 PM, "ocket8888@gmail.com" <oc...@gmail.com> wrote:

    I just opened a PR that adds deprecation notices to the response bodies
    of requests to `/federation_resolvers/{{ID}}` and adds a DELETE method
    handler to `/federation_resolvers`. That was the only method that
    `/federation_resolvers/{{ID}}` handled, so with the handler addition to
    `/federation_resolvers`, the former serves no purpose that the latter
    cannot do equally well.

    So is it cool if we deprecate it?