# Composite ID inside the resource object

**URL:** <https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/composite-id-inside-the-resource-object/367>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [February 29, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/composite-id-inside-the-resource-object/367 "2016-02-29T14:20:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ylazaryev](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.jsonapi.org/ylazaryev/32/257_2.png) [@ylazaryev](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/u/ylazaryev)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 7:29am UTC](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/composite-id-inside-the-resource-object/367/13 "2016-04-11T07:29:37Z")

</div>

As the application I am currently working on is stateless facade and there is no way to persist a surrogate key - I am going to use `id` as an irrelevant “write-only” value in order to be compliant with the current spec.  
However, I consider it a workaround for the fact that spec doesn’t support aggregate entities with composite keys, which are perfectly normal way to model things.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/composite-id-inside-the-resource-object/367)._