Pagination in a REST web application

I agree with Fionn, but I'll go one step further and say that to me the Page is not a resource, it's a property of the request. That makes me chose option 1 query string only. It just feels right. I really like how the Twitter API is structured restfully. Not too simple, not too complicated, well documented. For better or worse it's my "go to" design when I am on the fence on doing something one way versus another.

---

I think the problem with version 3 is more a "point of view" problem - do you see the page as the resource or the products on the page.

If you see the page as the resource it is a perfectly fine solution, since the query for page 2 will always yield page 2.

But if you see the products on the page as the resource you have the problem that the products on page 2 might change (old products deleted, or whatever), in this case the URI is not always returning the same resource(s).

E.g. A customer stores a link to the product list page X, next time the link is opened the product in question might no longer be on page X.

---

HTTP has great Range header which is suitable for pagination too. You may send

Range: pages=1

to have only first page. That may force you to rethink what is a page. Maybe client wants a different range of items. Range header also works to declare an order:

Range: products-by-date=2009_03_27-

to get all products newer than that date or

Range: products-by-date=0-2009_11_30

to get all products older than that date. '0' is probably not best solution, but RFC seems to want something for range start. There may be HTTP parsers deployed which wouldn't parse units=-range_end.

If headers is not an (acceptable) option, i reckon first solution (all in query string) is a way to deal with pages. But please, normalize query strings (sort (key=value) pairs in alphabet order). This solves "?a=1&b=x" and "?b=x&a=1" differentiation problem.

---

Option 1 seems the best, to the extent that your application views pagination as a technique for producing a different view of the same resource.

Having said that, the URL scheme is relatively insignificant. If you are designing your application to be hypertext-driven (as all REST applications must be by definition), then your client will not be constructing any URIs on its own. Instead, your application will be giving the links to the client and the client will follow them.

One kind of link your client can provide is a pagination link.

The pleasant side-effect of all of this is that even if you change your mind about pagination URI structure and implement something totally different next week, your clients can continue working without any modification whatsoever.

---

I have always used the style of option 1. Caching has not been a concern since the data changes frequently anyway in my case. If you allow the size of the page to be configurable then again the data can't be cached.

I don't find the url hard to remember or unclean. To me this is a fine use of query parameters. The resource is clearly a list of products and the query params are just telling how you want the list displayed - sorted and which page.

---

Strange that nobody has pointed out that Option 3 has parameters in a specific order. http//application/products/Date/Descending/Name/Ascending/page/2 and http//application/products/Name/Ascending/Date/Descending/page/2

are pointing to the same resource, but have completely different urls.

For me Option 1 seems the most acceptable, since it clearly separates "What I want" and "How I want" it (It even has question mark between them lol). Full-page caching can be implemented using full URL (All options will suffer of the same problem anyway).

With Parameters-in-URL approach the only benefit is clean URL. Though you have to come up with some way to encode parameters and losslessly decode them. Of course you can go with URLencode/decode, but it will make urls ugly again :)

---

Looking for best practices I came across this site:

http://www.restapitutorial.com

In the resources page there is a link to download a .pdf that contains the complete REST best practices suggested by the author. In which among other things there is a section about pagination.

The author suggest to add support to both using a Range header and using query-string parameters.

Request

HTTP header example:

Range: items=0-24

Query-string parameters example:

GET http://api.example.com/resources?offset=0&limit=25

Where offset is the beginning item number and limit is the maximum number of items to return.

Response

The response should include a Content-Range header indicating how many items are being returned and how many total items exist yet to be retrieved

HTTP header examples:

Content-Range: items 0-24/66

Content-Range: items 40-65/*

In the .pdf there are some other suggestions for more specific cases.

---

I'd prefer using query parameters offset and limit.

offset: for index of the item in the collection.

limit: for count of items.

The client can simply keep updating the offset as follows

offset = offset + limit

for the next page.

The path is considered the resource identifier. And a page is not a resource but a subset of the resource collection. Since pagination is generally a GET request, query parameters are best suited for pagination rather than headers.

Reference: https://metamug.com/article/rest-api-developers-dilemma.html#Requesting-the-next-page

---

I'm currently using a scheme similar to this in my ASP.NET MVC apps:

e.g. http://application/products/by-date/page/2

specifically it's : http://application/products/Date/Ascending/3

However, I'm not really happy with including paging and sorting information in the route in this way.

The list of items (products in this case) is mutable. i.e. the next time someone returns to a url that includes paging and sorting parameters, the results they get may have changed. So the idea of http://application/products/Date/Ascending/3 as a unique url that points to a defined, unchanging set of products is lost.

---

I tend to agree with slf that "page" is not really a resource. On the other hand, option 3 is cleaner, easier to read, and can be more easily guessed by the user and even typed out if necessary. I'm torn between options 1 and 3, but don't see any reason not to use option 3.

Also, while they look nice, one downside of using hidden parameters, as someone mentioned, rather than query strings or URL segments is that the user can't bookmark or directly link to a particular page. That may or may not be an issue depending on the application, but just something to be aware of.

---

I've used solution 3 before (I write a LOT of django apps). And I don't think that there is anything wrong with it. It's just as generatable as the other two (incase you need to do some mass scraping or the like) and it looks cleaner. Plus, your users can guess urls (if its a public facing app), and people like being able to go directly where they want, and url-guessing feels empowering.

---

I use in my projects the following urls:

http://application/products?page=2&sort=+field1-field2

which means - "give me page the second page ordered ascending by field1 and then descending by field2". Or if I need even more flexibility I use:

http://application/products?skip=20&limit=20&sort=+field1-field2

---

I use in following patterns to get the next page record. http://application/products?lastRecordKey=?&pageSize=20&sort=ASC

RecordKey is the column of a table which holds sequential value in DB. This is used to fetch only one page data at a time from DB. pageSize is used to determine how many record to fetch. sort is used to sort the record in ascending or descending order.

---