On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 18:47:05 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Yes you can, but it's not pretty.
>
> interface MyInterface
> {
>    void postGiveMeData(SomeData d);
> }
>
> class MyInterfaceImpl : MyInterface
> {
>    void postGiveMeData(SomeData d) { ... }
>    void getPage() { ... }
>    void index() { ... }
> }
>
> auto myI = new MyInterfaceImpl;
> router.registerRestInterface(myI);
> router.get("/route/to/getPage", &myI.getPage);
> router.get("/route/to/index", &myI.index);
>
> This worked for me, but note that my "non-rest" function was static, so I didn't need to worry about instances. I'm not sure if the above works exactly right for you.
>
> However, I would recommend actually not doing this for your purpose. My case was different -- I still wanted routes that were REST routes, but I wanted to control the result streaming (the vibe.d return value doesn't work with ranges, so I would have had to construct essentially my entire database in an array so I could return it).
>
> In your case, I think you are better off using 2 classes, and one shared data storage area.
>
> -Steve

Thanks! (Some how I missed your post).