If you mean JAX-RS Clients with clients, then this is just an issue of tight
specification.
If you mean other Clients, then this is to be clearly specified by the
service docs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com]
> Sent: Montag, 1. August 2011 21:56
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Hypermedia - Take 2
>
> Meaning that all type of clients can understand how to work with a
> given link.
> Example, if say I'm using a generic Atom reader which gets a feed with
> rel links bubt without xml:base then
> if we can find at least 1 client that fails to convert rel links to
> absolute ones then I'd say using relative links in
> that specific context is not interoperable
>
> Cheers, Sergey
> ________________________________________
> From: Markus KARG [markus_at_headcrashing.eu]
> Sent: 01 August 2011 17:59
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Hypermedia - Take 2
>
> Interoperable in which context?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com]
> > Sent: Sonntag, 31. Juli 2011 21:43
> > To: Sergey Beryozkin; jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> > Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Hypermedia - Take 2
> >
> > I guess saving payloads with embedded absolute links is also not
> > guaranteed to be perfectly 'restorable' - the absolute server address
> > may change, but overall using absolute URIs seem to be OK for basic
> > default cases,
> > IMHO It's not a big deal in the end of the day if relative links
> assume
> > the default value, likewise I don't think it's a big deal if absolute
> > URIs are used by default - the question to experts is which form is
> > more interoperable,
> >
> > Sergey
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Sergey Beryozkin
> > Sent: 31 July 2011 20:31
> > To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> > Subject: RE: [jsr339-experts] Re: Hypermedia - Take 2
> >
> > Markus, I think we've just got sidetracked.
> > I've been advocating the use of @Ref.ABSOLUTE being the default value
> > and you are saying that relative links work great which to be honest
> > I'm not disputing :-).
> > I'm saying ABSOLUTE are always guaranteed to work; working with
> > relative links may present certain challenges - I don't want to offer
> > hypothetical examples, but
> > I hope you can agree that working with ABSOLUTE uris is more
> > straightforward and obviously is as RESTful as working with relative
> > URIs
> >
> > Sergey
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Markus KARG [markus_at_headcrashing.eu]
> > Sent: 29 July 2011 17:08
> > To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> > Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Hypermedia - Take 2
> >
> > I don't understand this problem actually. If a client receives a
> > document
> > with absolute links, that would be no problem for the client. So if
> the
> > server sends relative links, nice. If not, where's the problem?
> Again,
> > REST
> > was discovered by looking at the web, and the web uses relative links
> > quite
> > a lot. So I do not see why we always discuss about problems. Let's
> > discuss
> > about solutions. If the web is working, JAX-RS can also made working.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com]
> > > Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juli 2011 22:56
> > > To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> > > Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Hypermedia - Take 2
> > >
> > > Sorry, replying at the start of the message as we have an internal
> > > email migration and the web-based client does not append '>'
> > > properly...
> > > The problem is that we can not guarantee the server will build
> > relative
> > > links relative to the current request URI unless we always assume
> > JAX-
> > > RS 2.0 declarative hyperlinking feature is always
> > > used there at the other end which can not be guaranteed.
> > >
> > > thanks, Sergey
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > There is no single base URI for the client but only a base URI for
> > the
> > > request and all the subsequent requests *internally* executed to
> > build
> > > the
> > > complete document tree of *that* request (it is a difference
> whether
> > > the
> > > application executes two requests against the same base URI, or
> > whether
> > > the
> > > JAX-RS runtime has to run several GETs to resolve a document tree
> > > spanned
> > > from relative hypermedia resolution).
> > >
> > > So in the first case link.request().get() it resolves against
> > basePath,
> > > and
> > > in the second link.path("bar").request().get() it resolves against
> > > basePath\bar.
> > >
> > > I do not see any ambiguity here, as the resolution is done within
> the
> > > "get()" execution, not any later. As soon as get() returns, the
> > > document is
> > > already built (it does not contain any URIs anymore -- remember, my
> > > proposal
> > > was to load them on the fly and replace them by their original data
> > > type!).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Markus
> >
>