Pull Request: Requiring a Name for Actions

[Kevin Swiber]

I've been using the class attribute of actions where I really should be using a single identfier (e.g., "Select the 'add-item' action of the order.").  I've added a name attribute to support this.

As usual, I'm open to feedback.  Thanks!

Pull Request:  https://github.com/kevinswiber/siren/pull/2

--
Kevin Swiber

Projects: https://github.com/kevinswiber
Twitter: @kevinswiber

[Matthew Bishop]

I like this change. The name makes more sense because it can be used as a key to identify what the action is for. Class is still pretty fuzzy to me.

[David Eriksson]

Having name as a unique identifier for actions sounds good. But I also like the consistency between entity and action. 

If action has a name, I find it likely that the entity also should have a name and class made optional? That way the class array actually is more like tags that can be used to categorize the entity or action.

Cheers,

David

[Kevin Swiber]

Sorry I missed this.  It's been a crazy 60 days.

How would an entity's name be used?

So, in my brain, entities are linked by relations.  To navigate an entity graph, one would use link relations.  If I navigate to the order item link relation from the order, I know what's being returned when the response comes back from the href.

The reason I'm not using a link relation to describe an action on an entity is because they're conceptually different.  There might be an argument to kill the name property and start using link relations instead.  I don't like this approach because I feel it muddies the interaction model.

Thoughts?