Just wanted to add that this functionality is not only focused on some low-percentage use case client extensions. I
believe it is possible to expect that many users will want to access specifics of Jersey, RestEasy or CXF etc. client
implementations and configurations in a type-safe way.
Similarly, clients supporting HTTP protocol extensions (e.g. WebDAV) are another large use case group.
Marek
On 12/13/2011 11:53 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
> The idea is that with these interfaces you will be able to provide a fluent common API for a type-safe access to any
> client extension. The two-phase process (Factory->Builder) is there to enable the ability to type-safely configure the
> produced custom client before it is built. I took the inspiration in Bean Validation spec. Additionally, the API was
> supposed to provide injection support for the custom client builder artifacts.
>
> In an example, I wanted to make sure users are able to write this (see also in JAX-RS API client examples):
>
> ThrottledClient Client = ClientFactory
> .newClientBy(ThrottledClient.Builder.Factory.class)
> .requestQueueCapacity(10)
> .build();
>
> The above produces a ThrottledClient instance that uses a blocking queue to throttle the amount of client requests
> flowing through the client instance (see Staged Event Driven Architecture (SEDA) for more on this concept).
>
> Let's analyze the details of the example:
>
> ClientFactory.newClientBy(ThrottledClient.Builder.Factory.class)
>
> instantiates and possibly injects the factory that returns a typed ThrottledClient.Builder instance. The returned
> builder exposes a type-safe configuration method...
>
> .requestQueueCapacity(10)
>
> ... that is used to configure the client instance request queue capacity (note that this capacity is not modifiable once
> the client instance is created). At last a typed ThrottledClient instance is built and returned
>
> .build()
>
> so that the instance information can further be accessed in a type safe way (e.g. client.getRequestQueueCapacity()).
>
> That's for the explanation of why it is designed the way it is designed.
>
> I do not feel too strongly about this part of the API though. There are obviously other ways of achieving at least part
> of the same functionality even though I have yet to see a solution that would look more elegant in the code (from the
> user's perspective).
>
> To sum up, I like the current API but if you can find more support in EG for removing the API or propose a solid
> replacement for the functionality covered by the API, I would not stand in your way...
>
> Marek
>
> On 12/12/2011 02:47 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>> Maybe I should give more detail (again):
>>
>> * We don't need a set of interfaces the application developer will never see
>> * The interfaces are redudant. All you really need is to specify a javax.ws.rs.ext.ClientFactory with the class name of
>> your impl's factory within it.
>> * If you want to be able to support extensions (i.e. an extended interface to ClientFactory or Client), then it should
>> be left up to the provider how they want to support it. For example, I don't want Resteasy to be forced to use your
>> interfaces, especially when a typecast or even a constructor invocation would be good enough for this scenario.
>>
>> On 12/12/11 8:35 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> I've already complained about this before and gave in-depth reasons why
>>> we don't need these interfaces, but can we please remove Client.Builder
>>> and ClientFactoryBuilder? They are not needed by either the jaxrs
>>> implementation or the application developer. All logic can be contained
>>> within ClientFactory or Java EE app server.
>>>
>>> I have yet to hear a good reason from you guys why we need this extra
>>> bloat.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>