Decision Goal
We need to decide what the url hierarchy should be for APIs under the OpenCHAMI project
Category
Architecture
Stakeholders / Affected Areas
No response
Decision Needed By
No response
Problem Statement
With the growth of fabrica-based services, we're exposing the name of the schema directly in the directory structure of the code.
These are inconsistent and all have problems of some sort. If we want to take advantage of a domain we already own, we should use openchami.dev. If we need to buy openchami.io, I'm fine with that.
Proposed Solution
I propose we use <service>.openchami.dev and bring all existing apis into alignment.
Alternatives Considered
No response
Other Considerations
No response
Related Docs / PRs
No response
Decision Goal
We need to decide what the url hierarchy should be for APIs under the OpenCHAMI project
Category
Architecture
Stakeholders / Affected Areas
No response
Decision Needed By
No response
Problem Statement
With the growth of fabrica-based services, we're exposing the name of the schema directly in the directory structure of the code.
These are inconsistent and all have problems of some sort. If we want to take advantage of a domain we already own, we should use
openchami.dev. If we need to buy openchami.io, I'm fine with that.Proposed Solution
I propose we use
<service>.openchami.devand bring all existing apis into alignment.Alternatives Considered
No response
Other Considerations
No response
Related Docs / PRs
No response