On 2/21/2013 10:28 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 21/02/13 14:08, Bill Burke wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/20/2013 12:08 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>> Hello experts,
>>>
>>> Please review the issue that has been recently filed:
>>> http://java.net/jira/browse/JAX_RS_SPEC-359
>>>
>>> In summary the user wants to be able take a URI template, e.g.
>>> "http://example.com/name/{name}/age/{age}" and then take a URI, e.g.
>>> "http://example.com/name/Arnold/age/65" (guess who...) and extract the
>>> parameter values information into a Map<String, String> instance.
>>>
>>> The solution may look like:
>>>
>>> UriBuilder builder
>>> = UriBuilder.fromUri("http://example.com/name/{name}/age/{age}");
>>> UriTemplate template = builder.template();
>>> Map<String, String> params = new HashMap<String, String>();
>>> if (template.match("http://example.com/name/Arnold/age/65", params)) {
>>> params.put("name", "Alois");
>>> URI uri = builder.buildFromMap(params);
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> The above requires following API changes:
>>>
>>> * introduce UriTemplate to represent, well, URI templates...
>>> * add ability to get UriTemplate instances from UriBuilder and WebTarget
>>> * expose the boolean UriTemplate.match(URI, Map<String,
>>> String>) method as part of the UriTemplate API.
>>>
>>> Now, finally, my question is:
>>>
>>> Q1. Do you think the above API would be useful?
>>> Q2. Is it something we should still try to add into JAX-RS 2.0, given
>>> where we are?
>>>
>>
>> I'd say extend UriBuilder with a match() method instead of adding yet
>> another class we have to include within RuntimeDelegate. Something like:
>>
>> Map<String, String> match(String URI);
>>
>> match() returns null if it can't match the current expression with the
>> passed in URI.
>>
> This is simpler indeed, the question is then where do we stop with
> respect to supporting UriTemplate centric functions - so this can lead
> more methods added, seems like UriTemplate would be more useful, that
> said, I'm not exactly sure
>
>
>> Useful. Yes. Include in JAX-RS 2.0?
>
> I've no strong opinion on it, as I haven't heard any specific
> requirements from users; if the changes were to be made than I'd favor
> UriTemplate, whatever you all decide :-)
>
I disagree. UriBuilder already acts as uri template. Keep everything
in UriBuilder.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com