> In many cases, these endpoints are customer-specific, and violate the living daylights out of the RESTful design paradigm -- often exposing 'flattened' views for convenience.
This doesn't violate REST. The WWW is the canonical RESTful system, i.e. A client enters the API (a website) via a common entry point (example.com), navigates using links, and manipulates state using a shared understanding of a common media type (HTML and HTML forms). Think about it, when you go to a web page do you expect it to be about strictly one thing, e.g. when viewing a blog post, do you expect it to click a link to navigate to each comment? No, that would be insane. Does that make it non-RESTful? No. It is perfectly reasonable for a resource to be composed of other addressable resources.
This doesn't violate REST. The WWW is the canonical RESTful system, i.e. A client enters the API (a website) via a common entry point (example.com), navigates using links, and manipulates state using a shared understanding of a common media type (HTML and HTML forms). Think about it, when you go to a web page do you expect it to be about strictly one thing, e.g. when viewing a blog post, do you expect it to click a link to navigate to each comment? No, that would be insane. Does that make it non-RESTful? No. It is perfectly reasonable for a resource to be composed of other addressable resources.