Hi
On 14/12/11 17:58, Marek Potociar wrote:
>
>
> On Wed 14 Dec 2011 05:25:58 PM CET, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> On 14/12/11 13:37, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed 14 Dec 2011 11:47:47 AM CET, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I've had a closer look at the updated Request interface and IMHO it's grown into a uber-interface that exposes much of
>>>> the imformation which is already available in other interfaces which can be injected into the application code and
>>>> also exposes the methods that the application code should not even see.
>>>>
>>>> 1. HttpHeaders is there to provide the info about the current headers;
>>>> Request offers RequestHeaders which mainly duplicates what HttpHeaders can offer; would it make sense to get Request
>>>> updated to return HttpHeaders instead and may be just drop RequestHeaders;
>>>
>>> HttpHeaders are incomplete in terms of type-safe support of request headers. However, they are too request specific to
>>> be reusable in the response. Thus the new separate set of interfaces was designed with the intent to make HttpHeaders
>>> deprecated (via javadoc wording) over time.
>>>
>>
>> Why did you decide to avoid adding extra methods to HttpHeaders and retaining them for the purpose of representing the
>> request headers ? Adding new methods should not break the legacy client code and we'll have one less interface,
>> instead of keeping 2 mostly duplicate interfaces around for years ?
>
> Please understand that we want to keep the amount of potential BW incompatibilities to an absolute minimum.
This reminds me of the similar discussion we had about FilterContext.
Users do not implement HttpHeaders, right ? What BW compatibility issues
do you see users hitting in case of HttpHeaders being updated further ?
> In case of
> Request/Response the extension greatly outweighed the potential drawbacks of the interface extension. In case of
> HttpHeaders though, extending the interface does not bring enough value to be justified, esp. as the extension would
> result in an asymmetric API (HttpHeaders on request side and ResponseHeaders on the response side)
is this highly cosmetic drawback outweighed the decision in favor of
RequestHeaders ? JAX-RS users understand that HttpHeaders represent the
request headers. Having ResponseHeaders & HttpHeaders does not read the
pure way but ResponseHttpHeaders & HttpHeaders would be better and again
it would save us one extra interface.
You are thinking of RequestHeaders replacing HttpHeaders and we know
what it means in the Java land; besides as a replacement it will have to
be injectable too alongside HttpHeaders; the idea of answering to CXF
users why we have HttpHeaders & RequestHeaders and when we should use
either of those does not encourage me at all.
What exactly does this
http://jax-rs-spec.java.net/nonav/2.0/apidocs/javax/ws/rs/core/RequestHeaders.html
adds ?
getContentLength() is useful, just add to HttpHeaders;
by the way, getAllowMethods() - is is supposed to be on the
ResponseHeaders instead ?
IMHO we should try really hard now to get the number of interfaces to
the absolute bare minimum...
> as well as we are far
> less sure that people are not extending this interface (e.g. to provide extra type-safe http getters).
>
this is a speculation; I've never ever heard of anyone attempting to
implement HttpHeaders - and it would simply would not work anyway
because it is the runtime that drives the injection of HttpHeaders impls
with JAX-RS 1.1 saying nothing about checking for custom HttpHeaders impls.
>>>>
>>>> 2. UriInfo offers all the methods needed to get to the current request/base/absolute uri, Request duplicates 5-8
>>>> methods from UriInfo
>>>
>>> I assume you are referring to something that's being already discussed in a different thread.
>>>
>> I was simple summarizing here;
>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. JAX-RS is about MessageBodyReaders making it possible for users to write the code like this:
>>>>
>>>> public void post(Book book);
>>>>
>>>> Having Request all of those methods that users are supposedly can/should (?) call instead does not make sense to me.
>>>> Request takes upon the MBR and in fact the Providers functionality here.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. Request encapsulates the logic provided by handlers as well as mbr/mbw providers. In some cases it may
>>> make sense to use request in other cases it doesn't. It's just a tool for a job. It's no different from any other
>>> component in (any) API.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For example, now instead of composite MBRs injecting Providers they will/should inject Request instead ?
>>>
>>> Most certainly not.
>>
>> Why does that mean ?
>
> Perhaps I do not fully understand, what are you trying to point out, but I really don't see a reasonable connection
> between Request and Providers. MBR is a lower level concept than request. So I assume that most certainly people will
> still want to stick to Providers in their MBRs.
>
>>
>>> But obviously, it is a very broad question so a correct answer would be "It depends."...
>>> Yet, I can only repeat that it is not our job to absolutely protect people from doing stupid things with the tools we
>>> provide.
>>>
>>
>> I find this argument being bizarre; first we offer 5 options to users to get to the input stream from their
>> application code and then we say, or lets tell not be stupid and don't try to use Request IS getters when you get Book
>> in the signature.
>
> I never said that. I said that injecting Request in MBR would be most likely not something you would want to do (i.e.
> stupid). Obviously, injecting a request into a resource or a resource method is a valid thing to do. Similarly,
> injecting entity input stream to a resource method is also a valid thing to do.
>
> I am sorry, but I fail to understand your point here. From what I understand so far, you seem to be mixing message body
> readers, injection of Providers as well as application-level resource method signatures into a single question that
> seems to evolve around using injected Request in some ambiguous use case.
>
> Perhaps it would help if you could share a specific example of the issue you see?
>
JAX-RS offers few options to the users to get access to the InputStream:
- indirectly - MBRs help with serializing InputStream into custom Java types
- directly: InputStream MBR offers this option to users
As far as the users writing the application code is concerned, they are
completely covered as far as the access to InputStream is concerned. And
if some users really need it then JAX-RS can leak HttpServletRequest
stream by getting it injected.
'Request' is visible to the application code. Making all the input
stream getters there visible to the code is 'redundant'. There is only
one case I can think of: users type resource methods with void in
signatures and just use Request to get the actual data they need;
however this has never been requested and is or more interest in context
of working with multi-parts. I recommend to minimize the exposure of
input streams at the application level; no user will ever implement
Request so we can push it back to Request if the demands get in
Re your remark about injecting Request into MBRs... You can't assume
that. Custom MBRs will want to check a verb, MBWs can check if it's a
conditional GET and ignore the response, they can do something we can't
of think of now at the moment. I've had a user checking for a list of
matched URIs in MBR - users have a lot of custom cases to cover.
Besides, consider a user writing a composite MBR and checking the JAX-RS
2.0 dev archives and seeing the comment that Request encapsulates the
logic of MBRs. as you know the composite MBR does not do any reads, just
delegates. So I don't see what will prevent a user from injecting
Request and doing
public class CompositeMBR implements MessageBodyReader<Book> {
public Book readFrom(Book.class, ...)
return request.getEntity(Book.class) {
}
}
why mess with checking Providers, the above is plain simpler ?
What is our position here ? Will the above call recurse to this very
CompositeMBR ?
Consider moving Request data getters to where they are actually needed -
at the handler/filter level rather than saying we should tell users just
be careful out there
Sergey
>>
>>>>
>>>> I know that filters do need such methods - hence I propose to move these input stream/etc getters away from Request
>>>> and make them visible on relevant filter/handler interfaces
>>>
>>> Consuming streams is already allowed by JAX-RS 1.x spec also in the resource methods. It is quite useful in fact if you
>>> need to process large entities.
>>>
>> I'm getting annoyed, I'm sorry.
>> Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, we let people do InputStream or Book in the signature. Please justify why we
>> also should let them do the same via Request in the application code
>
> For the very same reasons we let them inject Request into resources or resource methods already now - e.g. to be able to
> produce a response or work with conditional tags etc.
>
> Marek
>
>>
>> Thanks, Sergey
>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sergey
>>
>>
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com