On 22/02/13 14:55, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> On 2/21/2013 12:37 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> 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.
>>
>> Ok, your other email seems to make sense. Even though I think the user
>> has a point (see issue comments) that the map should not be created by
>> us, but user should be able to pass it as an input parameter. (Or
>> maybe we can have 2 versions of the method.)
>>
>>>
>>> Useful. Yes. Include in JAX-RS 2.0? Well... I don't get it...you've
>>> deferred some pretty trivial improvements that I've submitted and in
>>> some cases important JIRAs like:
>>>
>>> JAX_RS_SPEC-339
>>> JAX_RS_SPEC-317
>>>
>>> But you want to include a brand new feature? Plus complain everytime
>>> I make a suggestion that we're too close to the PFD? A bit
>>> hypocritical don't you think?
>>
>> Maybe I should have just ignored this rant, but then again, it's rude
>> to not reply to direct questions. :)
>>
>> Note that in my email I'm merely asking what you (EG) think. I'm not
>> pushing for anything, or suggesting we should (or must) do anything.
>> For that matter, I have not expressed any opinion about whether or not
>> we should include the feature in 2.0. So to answer your last question,
>> no, I do not think I'm being hypocritical here.
>>
>> Funny thing is that knowing you're somewhat frustrated after our
>> recent conversations I tried to be extra careful to not sound like I
>> would be pushing for anything and formulate the email as a pure
>> summary of the issue at hand plus a couple of questions I'd like to
>> get EG feedback on. Alas, apparently to no avail.
>>
>
> You are the spec lead. You're the one with deadlines. You decide when
> you are closing feature requests. I don't care either way, but if the
> spec is still open there are minor improvements I'd like to get in,
> specifically the exception message stuff.
>
> FWIW, I think the uri template stuff is a nice addition, but want new
> methods on UriBuilder.
>
I'm against turning UriBuilder into UriTemplate, it is way too complex
already, and as I said it is *not* UriTemplate, but the 'user' of it
Cheers, Sergey
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com