On Oct 22, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
> As the RFC allows it, we have to support it. There is no need to add more
> methods if we *replace* getLink by getLinks.
-1
If we do that, we'd be designing the API for the exception not the rule. In the majority of cases, you'd have a collection with a single element.
-- Santiago
>
>> -----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
>
>