On 08/30/2011 06:12 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
> Ok, I mean it this time, this is my last suggestion on the API.
>
>
> On 8/30/11 11:45 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> I guess I'm still after having Invocation dealing only with invoke().
>
> This could simplify things as well. The problem I had before was that it doesn't make sense to be able to set headers
> on a Target. It does make sense to get() or put() or post() or delete() a Target. Since there's now an Entity object,
> you won't really need to set any headers for the common case. (And no, I don't think accept-header is a common case)
>
> You make the common use cases fully fluent and easy. Make complex and invoke() cases completely flexibile. Meaning you
> can build the request however you like, in whatever order you like, and view the contents of the unsent request whenever
> you like without having all these fluency hang-ups.
>
> I'd put together another revision proposal for this, but I doubt Marek would like the idea as he is so stubbornly hung
> up on this fluency nonsense.
Yes, I am pretty much happy with what we have right now. Much more than with what we had earlier in fact.
It may not be visible but I spend a lot of time experimenting various different options (including many of those later
suggested on this thread), evaluating PROs and CONs.
Yet, I am still interested in looking at your suggestion as we might have overlooked some elegant improvement. I promise
you will at least not hear any pejoratives from my end. ;-)
Marek
>
> Bill
>