Sergey,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 2. November 2011 11:13
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: HEADS-UP: Encoding values of UriBuilder
> template parameters
>
> On 01/11/11 18:37, Markus KARG wrote:
> >>> what the JIRA issue actually is talking about is not the *name* of
> >> the parameter, but _solely_ slashes contained in *values* provided
> to
> >> *build()* (maybe this is not clear in JIRA?).
> >> That is the value, with UriBuilder one can just do
> >> path("bar").build();
> > Wrong. Check http://jackson.codehaus.org/javadoc/jax-
> > rs/1.0/javax/ws/rs/core/UriBuilder.html#build(java.lang.Object...):
> >Certainly you can provide values to build().
>
> What is wrong ? Have I said you can't pass pass values to build ? Look
> at my last response again please.
Well, you response said that one can just do path("bar").build() -- I don't see any parameters in build() there. So yes, you said that -- or at least I read it that way.
> > Actually this issue is just about the values provided to *build*, not
> > to *path*. In fact, I opened that JIRA issue *because* I experienced
> > the described problem with values passed into *build*.
> Well. IMHO whether it's a value which is passed directly to path() or
> to build(), it probably needs to be consistent.
> In other words, the output of
>
> builder.path(value).build()
>
> and
>
> builder.path("{value}").build(value)
>
> should produce the same output, no ?
>
> same for segment calls...
I think here is the difference in out visions. I actually expect it TO BE a difference wheter I pass a value to path(), or to build(). Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to have either way to do it. The sense of path() is to define position and semantics of parameters. The sense of build is to encode values. At least that is what makes sense from the view of a user, and it is what the javadocs of JAX-RS 1.0 say.
Anyway, this is what users need. So we have to find a way to make it work. If you have a better solution how users can write applications without thinking about encoding, please present it. Until then, I do not see another way of working with data that contains slashes.
Regards
Markus
>
> Sergey
>
> >>> Regarding your example: (1) http is part of the scheme, not part of
> >> the path, so the below code is rather error prone. Shouldn't we
> >> define specs for correct use instead? (2) As the slashes are part of
> >> the
> >> *name* of the parameter, and as it just makes no sense to render the
> >> URI without providing a value to each parameter in this case, there
> >> is no need to touch the name of the parameter, so you will not
> encode it.
> >>>
> >> Cheers, Sergey
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Markus
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com]
> >>>> Sent: Dienstag, 1. November 2011 18:07
> >>>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> >>>> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: HEADS-UP: Encoding values of
> >> UriBuilder
> >>>> template parameters
> >>>>
> >>>> just recently we had a case like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> builder.path("{http://myns}service").build().
> >>>>
> >>>> Does "//" have to be encoded or not ?
> >>>> I think if I do want to encode then saying
> >>>>
> >>>> builder.segment("{http://myns}service").build().
> >>>>
> >>>> makes sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, perhaps this should be treated differently when template
> >>>> parameters are involved, but I'd not be worried about it
> >>>>
> >>>> Sergey
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/11/11 16:38, Markus KARG wrote:
> >>>>> Sorry for the late answer, had been out of office.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually I have to disagree to your conclusion! I do not see any
> >>>> difference in path parameters vs. segment parameters. I think your
> >>>> fault is that you think encoding is depentent of the method, but
> it
> >>>> is solely dependend of the target. And the target of both, path
> and
> >>>> segment, is the URI's path -- so there is no difference (while
> >>>> there is one for the query part, obviously)! In fact, *both
> places*
> >>>> have
> >> to
> >>>> resolve to an encoded form, as *both* have to take respect of the
> >>>> target, which is the URI's path:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> UriBuilder.path("abc/def/{arg1}).segment("123", "456",
> >>>>> "{arg1}").build("A/B")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *obviously* have to resolve exactly to:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> abc/def/A%2FB/123/456/A%2FB
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and to nothing else!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (If arg1 would be a queryParam, too, THEN (!) it would stay as
> A/B
> >>>>> as a slash is valid in the query part of the URI!)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you please explain why you think it would be beneficial to
> >> *not*
> >>>> encode the provided value? In what case would that make any sense?
> >>>> And what is your source (spec)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The sole difference between path and segment is only that using
> >>>> path() you can supply a complete chain of segments, i. e.
> >>>> path("abc/def"), while you have to provide a set of segments using
> >>>> segment(), i. e. segment ("abc", "def"). In fact, it is a fault to
> >>>> provide a slash to a segment as by URI's definition, a segment
> >> cannot
> >>>> contain a slash.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, that has nothing to do with encoding! Encoding will *always*
> >> be
> >>>> applied to any build() paramater's value *according to the
> template
> >>>> parameter's position in the template"! That means, a slash must be
> >>>> encoded in a path() or segment() template, but not in a
> >>>> queryParam() template. And, whatever is given to path() or
> >>>> segment(), will itself get never encoded, as only the values
> >>>> provided to build() are
> >> getting
> >>>> encoded.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Everything else just makes no sense to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or can you provide a real world example, where it makes sense to
> >>>> either encode the value given to path() or segment() / not to
> >>>> encode the value given to build()?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Markus
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 25. Oktober 2011 23:27
> >>>>>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> >>>>>> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: HEADS-UP: Encoding values of
> >>>> UriBuilder
> >>>>>> template parameters
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 25/10/11 20:50, Marek Potociar wrote:
> >>>>>>> Experts,
> >>>>>>> please read through the following CRITICAL issue& the
> attached
> >>>>>> comments:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://java.net/jira/browse/JAX_RS_SPEC-70
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am interested in your feedback to the conclusion I provided
> in
> >>>>>>> my comment attached to the issue. Please provide your feedback
> >>>>>>> by Monday
> >>>>>> next week Oct 31, 2011 CoB.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> agreed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Feel free to attach the feedback or any new comments directly
> to
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> issue.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Many thanks,
> >>>>>>> Marek
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>