There are no hard and fast rules, but the rule of thumb from a purely conceptual standpoint that I like to use can briefly be summed up like this: a URI path (by definition) represents a resource and query parameters are essentially modifiers on that resource. So far that likely doesn't help... With a REST API you have the major methods of acting upon a single resource using GET, PUT, and DELETE . Therefore whether something should be represented in the path or as a parameter can be reduced to whether those methods make sense for the representation in question. Would you reasonably PUT something at that path and would it be semantically sound to do so? You could of course PUT something just about anywhere and bend the back-end to handle it, but you should be PUTing what amounts to a representation of the actual resource and not some needlessly contextualized version of it. For collections the same can be done with POST. If you wanted to add to a particular collection what would be a URL that makes sense to POST to.

这仍然留下了一些灰色区域，因为一些路径可以指向多少子代的父资源，这在某种程度上是自由裁量的，取决于他们的使用。这所画出的一条界限是，任何类型的传递表示都应该使用查询参数来完成，因为它不会有底层资源。

为了响应原始问题中给出的真实示例(Twitter的API)，参数表示一个可传递查询，它过滤资源的状态(而不是层次结构)。在那个特定的例子中，向由这些约束表示的集合中添加数据是完全不合理的，而且该查询将无法表示为在对象图中有任何意义的路径。

The adoption of this type of resource oriented perspective can easily map directly to the object graph of your domain model and drive the logic of your API to the point where everything works very cleanly and in a fairly self-documenting way once it snaps into clarity. The concept can also be made clearer by stepping away from systems that use traditional URL routing mapped on to a normally ill-fitting data model (i.e. an RDBMS). Apache Sling would certainly be a good place to start. The concept of object traversal dispatch in a system like Zope also provides a clearer analog.

根据universe-resource-locator提供的“上下文”“打包”和POST数据，这对于定位器来说意味着#1。

注意第二条的局限性。比起第一条，我更喜欢post。

注:此处讨论的局限性

POST参数内容是否有最大大小?

GET请求的长度有限制吗?和最大大小的URL参数在_GET

附注:这些限制是基于客户端功能(浏览器)和服务器(配置)。

根据REST实现，

1)路径变量用于对资源的直接操作，如联系人或歌曲 前女友. . 获取etc /api/resource/{songid}或 GET etc /api/resource/{contactid}将返回相应的数据。

2)查询perms/参数用于间接资源，如一首歌的元数据 . ., GET / api /资源/ {songid} ?Metadata =genre它将返回特定歌曲的类型数据。

我看到很多REST api不能很好地处理参数。经常出现的一个例子是URI包含个人身份信息。

http://software.danielwatrous.com/design-principles-for-rest-apis/

我认为一个必然的问题是，当一个参数根本不应该是一个参数，而应该被移动到请求的HEADER或BODY。

作为一名经常在客户端工作的程序员，我更喜欢使用查询参数。另外，对我来说，它将URL路径从参数中分离出来，增加了清晰度，并提供了更多的可扩展性。它还允许我在URL/URI构建和参数构建器之间有单独的逻辑。

我很喜欢曼努埃尔·阿尔达纳说的另一种选择如果有某种树的话。我可以看到用户特定的部分被树形分开。

There are no hard and fast rules, but the rule of thumb from a purely conceptual standpoint that I like to use can briefly be summed up like this: a URI path (by definition) represents a resource and query parameters are essentially modifiers on that resource. So far that likely doesn't help... With a REST API you have the major methods of acting upon a single resource using GET, PUT, and DELETE . Therefore whether something should be represented in the path or as a parameter can be reduced to whether those methods make sense for the representation in question. Would you reasonably PUT something at that path and would it be semantically sound to do so? You could of course PUT something just about anywhere and bend the back-end to handle it, but you should be PUTing what amounts to a representation of the actual resource and not some needlessly contextualized version of it. For collections the same can be done with POST. If you wanted to add to a particular collection what would be a URL that makes sense to POST to.

这仍然留下了一些灰色区域，因为一些路径可以指向多少子代的父资源，这在某种程度上是自由裁量的，取决于他们的使用。这所画出的一条界限是，任何类型的传递表示都应该使用查询参数来完成，因为它不会有底层资源。

为了响应原始问题中给出的真实示例(Twitter的API)，参数表示一个可传递查询，它过滤资源的状态(而不是层次结构)。在那个特定的例子中，向由这些约束表示的集合中添加数据是完全不合理的，而且该查询将无法表示为在对象图中有任何意义的路径。

The adoption of this type of resource oriented perspective can easily map directly to the object graph of your domain model and drive the logic of your API to the point where everything works very cleanly and in a fairly self-documenting way once it snaps into clarity. The concept can also be made clearer by stepping away from systems that use traditional URL routing mapped on to a normally ill-fitting data model (i.e. an RDBMS). Apache Sling would certainly be a good place to start. The concept of object traversal dispatch in a system like Zope also provides a clearer analog.