Hi
>>> BTW, as the web
>>> is the prototype of REST, and the web typically is using relative
>> URLs in a
>>> massive way, we should really discuss the benefit of relative URLs
>> (better
>>> security as both parts must be in the same domain, less data to
>> transfer and
>>> process). Every browser comes with a resolver for that, so it should
>> be
>>> fairly easy for the Client API implementation to resolve relative
>> URLs
>>> received in responses (as it knows the base URL that the request was
>> sent
>>> to).
>> I guess if HTML representation is returned than yes, relative links
>> should world OK, otherwise it's an extra effort for the client code to
>> deal with such rel links ? We can get URIs relative to the base URI,
>> but
>> also perhaps relative the currentURI, example, GET has been made after
>> baseURI + several path()s ? I can imagine a large payload duplicating
>> the info like "http://host:port/order" - for cases like this we should
>> encourage users use relative links if feasible.
>> By the way, I think there should be a way to express that a response
>> xml
>> representation needs to have xml:base attribute for resolving relative
>> links
>
> For what do we need that base URI? I mean, if my browser does a request to
> http://www.foo.de/bar/x/y/z.html, and that html contains <img src="i.png"/>
> then all browsers on this earth are able to assume a base URI of
> http://www.foo.de/bar/x/y. So why should the client engine behave anything
> different? And what do you mean with "additional effort" -- we just talk
> about splitting a path from a file in world of 3+ GHz MultiCore laptops.
> Have you every computed the actual costs you are complaining about? ;-)
>
LOL :-) I think it's 2nd time I'm getting this message - do I sound like
I'm complaining :-) ?
Anyway, you did not comment on what I said about the ambiguity to do
with getting a payload with relative links after
link.request().get()
and
link.path("bar").request().get()
should the client resolve the rel links against
basePath or basePath + "bar" ?
I'm not saying we should not support relative links, I just feel
absolute URIs are more interoperable which is important
Cheers, Sergey
> Regards
> Markus
>
--
Sergey Beryozkin
http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
Talend - http://www.talend.com