On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should stick to the standard attributes but leave the
>>> capability to define extensions (not unlike arbitrary HTTP headers) and
>>> let them worry about their syntax?
>>
>> This would be my preference, have standard attributes (as defined in
>> RFC) supported explicitly, the parameters map is there to accommodate
>> for the extensions if any.
>>
>>> I'd rather us not over-specify things
>>> here; I'm on the fence with the attribute 'method', though.
>>
>> it does not harm but as I said I can see it working with the 'consumes'
>> extension together, with the idea being that knowing the method and what
>> the 'target' accepts, one can post/put to it.
>>
>> I'd drop the explicit support for 'produces', and either keep the
>> explicit support for consumes + method or drop both. If we were to keep
>> them then I'd also rename 'consumes' to 'accept' to give it a more
>> JAX-RS-neutral name
>>
>
> you don't need consumes either as the 'type' attribute covers it.
Simplification of Link class:
http://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/sources/git/revision/82749c50d691aaaebb4cd7897873e10af70197eb
Convenience methods only for "type", "title" and "rel". Class no longer attempts to parse multi-valued params.
-- Santiago