On 8/29/11 10:57 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Santiago,
>
> Few questions for you:
>
> On 29/08/11 15:44, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/26/11 2:48 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>>> Are you now suggesting we take the generic invocation out??
>>>
>>> Yes. I think many specifications try to incorporate a lot of edge
>>> cases and end up seriously bloating themselves. This may be one of
>>> those scenarios. At the time, it seemed like a good idea that
>>> wouldn't affect the API very harshly. Things have changed.
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Although in general I support the idea of simplifying the API, I
>> disagree generic invocations is an edge case. Support for generic
>> invocations is needed to make invocations first class; the ability to
>> configure and store invocations in data structures for later retrieval
>> and execution gives developers a greater flexibility on how to
>> modularize (large) applications and it also enables lazy execution of
>> invocations.
>>
> 1. Do you really believe that most of JAX-RS 2.0 client API users will
> code invoke() in the end of the chain ? Your -1 seems like a fairly
> strong preference of invoke() at the end for all the cases.
> 2. What is your position re the compromise proposal to do with letting
> users code get()/etc at the end of the chain without paying the price of
> typing request() yet still easily being able to create Invocations
> 3. Do you agree that a single flow ending with get() is preferable to
> a single flow ending with invoke() ?
>
invoke() at the end is not required with the current revision, so I
don't see your point Sergey. Santiago is advocating a request() method.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com