On 06/27/2011 03:56 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> I should've commented on the users list - to me initial resource URI is "resourceURI", links are little helpers to help the client navigate via the resource application state...
> I guess we all can say "can you send me the link to that resource" though, but "resourceURI" reflects the nature of initial 'link' better IMHO. Anyway, it's later I guess
I did the renaming, but I am not too happy about it now that I see it (although I voted for Link too). The way I see it
now, ResourceLink would be a better name...
>
> As a side note using something like Link to create Invocation and then using that invocation to do invoke() is complex and invoke() just does not read right and one step too much - I'm hoping to comment more on it a bit later on.
You can create invocations directly from the client too. Resource links are good when you need to provide a
resource-specific setup and/or send multiple requests to the same resource. In general, you don't want to create too
many client instances. The idea is that all the heavy-weight initialization should happen in the client and then
resource links and invocations should be much cheaper to create.
Marek
>
> thanks, Sergey
> ________________________________________
> From: Marek Potociar [marek.potociar_at_oracle.com]
> Sent: 27 June 2011 12:35
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: HEADS-UP: Vote for client-side glorified resource identifier class name
>
> On 06/24/2011 04:13 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>> Anyway, based on the results I am going to rename the ResourceUri to Link. Many thanks those 3 other members for their
>> participation.
>
> Renamed.
>
> Marek