As the RFC allows it, we have to support it. There is no need to add more
methods if we *replace* getLink by getLinks.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santiago Pericas-Geertsen
> [mailto:Santiago.PericasGeertsen_at_oracle.com]
> Sent: Montag, 22. Oktober 2012 15:31
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: There could be more than one Link header
> for a given rel
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 21, 2012, at 12:29 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> AFAIK there can be more than one Link header value for any given
> rel. E.g. one could have
> >>
> >> Link: </a>; rel="describedBy"
> >> Link: </b>; rel="describedBy"
> >>
> >> given that
> >>
> >> Link getLink(String relation)
> >>
> >> Should (unfortunately) be something like
> >>
> >> Collection<Link> getLinks(String relation)
> >>
> >> Agreed?
> >>
> >> I'll check back on apps-discuss.
> >
> > Seems correct - there can be more than one link for any given rel:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-
> discuss/current/msg07612.html
> >
> > Issue opened here:
> > http://java.net/jira/browse/JAX_RS_SPEC-276
>
> We had some discussions about this in the past (I'd need to look them
> up). I recall people thought this case was much less common and could
> be handled by Set<Links> getLinks() and some filtering, already in the
> API. I'm not strongly opposed to this addition, but there something to
> be said about keeping the number of methods to a minimum.
>
> -- Santiago