Feedback on HttpApi Structure and Nested Groups
Some feedback regarding the HttpApi:
1. I don't like that to implement a HttpApiGroup you need an HttpApi. It would imo be much nicer if I could just implement that single group given its declaration and then merge implemented groups together to form a HttpApi. I can only really speak for myself but I think this is the main reason why some people here (including me when I started) are asking "how to structure/separate the implementation and declaration". Another reason for this is that when you want to merge a HttpApi A into a HttpApi B using
2. It would be nice if groups could be further nested. Currently, as far as I know, only:
is supported but I would also like:
1. I don't like that to implement a HttpApiGroup you need an HttpApi. It would imo be much nicer if I could just implement that single group given its declaration and then merge implemented groups together to form a HttpApi. I can only really speak for myself but I think this is the main reason why some people here (including me when I started) are asking "how to structure/separate the implementation and declaration". Another reason for this is that when you want to merge a HttpApi A into a HttpApi B using
addHttpApi you now can't use the implementations for the HttpApiGroup's of HttpApi A anymore unless both HttpApi's have gotten the same identifier when creating them with HttpApi.make because this identifier is part of the type signature of the HttpApiGroup implementation.2. It would be nice if groups could be further nested. Currently, as far as I know, only:
is supported but I would also like:
