On 08/26/2011 06:27 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 26/08/11 17:19, Markus KARG wrote:
>>> Markus, Sergey: I have reintroduced the target.request(), you didn't
>>> like. However I tried to do it in a way that does
>>> not bring any extra method into the invocation chain. Instead of:
>>>
>>> client.target().accept("text/plain").get();
>>>
>>> You can now write:
>>>
>>> client.target().request("text/plain").get();
>>
>> Actually I do not see why it is necessary to *rename* the method. Obviously it still is used to pass in the accept
>> header, so why not still name it accept, independent of what it actually does or produce?
>>
>
> how does it work now for post() with Congtent-Type ?
Entity headers are specified as part of the entity, using one of the Entity.* static methods:
client.target(...).request().put(Entity.text("Hi"));
client.target(...).request().put(Entity.xml(customer));
client.target(...).request().put(Entity.entity("Hi", "text/plain"));
client.target(...).request().put(Entity.entity("Hi", new Variant("text/plain", Locale.ENGLISH, "gzip")));
With static import of Entity, this reduces to:
client.target(...).request().put(text("Hi"));
client.target(...).request().put(xml(customer));
client.target(...).request().put(entity("Hi", "text/plain"));
client.target(...).request().put(entity("Hi", new Variant("text/plain", Locale.ENGLISH, "gzip")));
Marek
>
> Sergey
>
>
>>> In the fluent interface I prefer async().put() over putAsync() or
>>> asyncPut().
>>
>> Me, too.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>
>