[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: UriTemplate API?

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:02:30 +0000

On 22/02/13 15:51, Bill Burke wrote:
> On 2/22/2013 10:06 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> 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
> A uri template is something you build URIs from. Also, UriBuilder is
> already a mutable uri template. UriBuilder already has code to parse and
> process uri templates. Seems like a perfectly natural place to include
> match to me.
UriBuilder builds URI, asking URIBuilder "are you matching it" is
confusing, because it is a builder, not a matcher. UriTemplate may have
a number of useful methods letting users to get the properties of a
given template - and having most of those methods would not make sense
to have at UriBuilder level;

Perhaps a single match() on UriBuilder and then following, now or later,
with UriTemlpate, would be reasonable, though I'd prefer not to stress
UriBuilder interface unless really needed

Cheers, Sergey