On 12/13/2011 12:11 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi Marek
> On 13/12/11 10:59, Marek Potociar wrote:
>> Just wanted to add that this functionality is not only focused on some low-percentage use case client extensions. I
>> believe it is possible to expect that many users will want to access specifics of Jersey, RestEasy or CXF etc. client
>> implementations and configurations in a type-safe way.
>>
>
> I think many users who will migrate to 2.0 client API will be very sensitive about writing unportable code; the example
> you shown is technically interesting but I wonder if people will ever write such code,
>
> I may be wrong, but a code like this:
>
> Client client = ...
> MyJaxrsImplStack.cast(client).setRequestQueueCapacity(10) is equally 'portable'
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>> Similarly, clients supporting HTTP protocol extensions (e.g. WebDAV) are another large use case group.
>>
> That is more interesting, would be useful to see an example from Markus or yourself;
The WebDAV client draft example is available for quite some time in our workspace:
http://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/sources/git/show/src/examples/src/main/java/jaxrs/examples/client/webdav
just would like to understand if we
> should get some setProperties(Map) method instead for various extensions to get configured
Not sure I follow. We do not plan to define any standard properties (or features) in JAX-RS 2.0.
Marek
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>> Marek
>>
>> On 12/13/2011 11:53 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>> The idea is that with these interfaces you will be able to provide a fluent common API for a type-safe access to any
>>> client extension. The two-phase process (Factory->Builder) is there to enable the ability to type-safely configure the
>>> produced custom client before it is built. I took the inspiration in Bean Validation spec. Additionally, the API was
>>> supposed to provide injection support for the custom client builder artifacts.
>>>
>>> In an example, I wanted to make sure users are able to write this (see also in JAX-RS API client examples):
>>>
>>> ThrottledClient Client = ClientFactory
>>> .newClientBy(ThrottledClient.Builder.Factory.class)
>>> .requestQueueCapacity(10)
>>> .build();
>>>
>>> The above produces a ThrottledClient instance that uses a blocking queue to throttle the amount of client requests
>>> flowing through the client instance (see Staged Event Driven Architecture (SEDA) for more on this concept).
>>>
>>> Let's analyze the details of the example:
>>>
>>> ClientFactory.newClientBy(ThrottledClient.Builder.Factory.class)
>>>
>>> instantiates and possibly injects the factory that returns a typed ThrottledClient.Builder instance. The returned
>>> builder exposes a type-safe configuration method...
>>>
>>> .requestQueueCapacity(10)
>>>
>>> ... that is used to configure the client instance request queue capacity (note that this capacity is not modifiable once
>>> the client instance is created). At last a typed ThrottledClient instance is built and returned
>>>
>>> .build()
>>>
>>> so that the instance information can further be accessed in a type safe way (e.g. client.getRequestQueueCapacity()).
>>>
>>> That's for the explanation of why it is designed the way it is designed.
>>>
>>> I do not feel too strongly about this part of the API though. There are obviously other ways of achieving at least part
>>> of the same functionality even though I have yet to see a solution that would look more elegant in the code (from the
>>> user's perspective).
>>>
>>> To sum up, I like the current API but if you can find more support in EG for removing the API or propose a solid
>>> replacement for the functionality covered by the API, I would not stand in your way...
>>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2011 02:47 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> Maybe I should give more detail (again):
>>>>
>>>> * We don't need a set of interfaces the application developer will never see
>>>> * The interfaces are redudant. All you really need is to specify a javax.ws.rs.ext.ClientFactory with the class
>>>> name of
>>>> your impl's factory within it.
>>>> * If you want to be able to support extensions (i.e. an extended interface to ClientFactory or Client), then it should
>>>> be left up to the provider how they want to support it. For example, I don't want Resteasy to be forced to use your
>>>> interfaces, especially when a typecast or even a constructor invocation would be good enough for this scenario.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/11 8:35 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>> I've already complained about this before and gave in-depth reasons why
>>>>> we don't need these interfaces, but can we please remove Client.Builder
>>>>> and ClientFactoryBuilder? They are not needed by either the jaxrs
>>>>> implementation or the application developer. All logic can be contained
>>>>> within ClientFactory or Java EE app server.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have yet to hear a good reason from you guys why we need this extra
>>>>> bloat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>