On 12/13/2011 01:43 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 13/12/11 12:19, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/13/2011 12:11 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> Hi Marek
>>> On 13/12/11 10:59, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think many users who will migrate to 2.0 client API will be very sensitive about writing unportable code; the example
>>> you shown is technically interesting but I wonder if people will ever write such code,
>>>
>>> I may be wrong, but a code like this:
>>>
>>> Client client = ...
>>> MyJaxrsImplStack.cast(client).setRequestQueueCapacity(10) is equally 'portable'
>>>
>>> Cheers, Sergey
>>>
>>>> Similarly, clients supporting HTTP protocol extensions (e.g. WebDAV) are another large use case group.
>>>>
>>> That is more interesting, would be useful to see an example from Markus or yourself;
>>
>> The WebDAV client draft example is available for quite some time in our workspace:
>> http://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/sources/git/show/src/examples/src/main/java/jaxrs/examples/client/webdav
>>
>
> http://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/sources/git/content/src/examples/src/main/java/jaxrs/examples/client/webdav/WebDavClientTest.java?rev=28a66e0a9dca7519da55690c7625cd6524aa94bf
>
>
> does not show any type safe property updates
True. But the whole impl shows type-safe WebDAV method invocations.
>
>> just would like to understand if we
>>> should get some setProperties(Map) method instead for various extensions to get configured
>>
>> Not sure I follow. We do not plan to define any standard properties (or features) in JAX-RS 2.0.
>>
>
> I was saying that this
>
>>>>> ThrottledClient Client = ClientFactory
>>>>> .newClientBy(ThrottledClient.Builder.Factory.class)
>>>>> .requestQueueCapacity(10)
>>>>> .build();
>
> is all about typed property updates such as requestQueueCapacity(10), hence I thought that rather than having it
> supported just for the sake of letting user type requestQueueCapacity(10) may be we should just let them do
> .setProperty("capacity", 10); if they really need to and I'm not terribly concerned that it's an type-unsafe approach
Ok. My position is that type safe methods are arguably better for users when compared to generic ones. But I said, I am
not going to push for the current API too hard in this case.
Marek
>
>
> Sergey
>
>> Marek
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers, Sergey
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>