[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Re: Re: There could be more than one Link header for a given rel

From: Markus KARG <>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:12:37 +0200

> >> 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
> >
> > What if you must write a JAX-RS client for an existing service that
> > actually is sending multiple same-name Links?
> >
> > What if you must re-write a service using JAX-RS that already had
> such
> > an API and you must not break it for beakwards compatibility?
> >
> > We cannot say "sorry folks, Santiago thought nobody will need it, so
> > do not use JAX-RS for it", as long as the RFC allows it.
> >
> > Also, I do not see any problem to simply write "getLinks()[0]" or
> > "getLinks(0)" or "getLinks().next()" etc.
> >
> Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but based on this thread I thought the
> plan is to keep the convenience getLink(String rel) method to return
> the first value of getLinks(String rel) method, which we would also
> keep.

Seems this must be some kind of misunderstanding. What I proposed was that
we *replace* getLink by getLinks as Santigo didn't want an *additional*
method. So I did not miss something. Anyways, so do we all agree that in the
end the user will have the following to methods?

.getLink(String rel) AND .getLinks(String rel)?

> So your sarcasm seems unnecessary and based on not following the
> discussion carefully.

Sarcasm is never "necessary" (I wonder how a situation would look like where
it *is*) but it is always a kind of art of poetry and humor and personal
style to express. If you are not used to it, do not understand it, or do not
like it, I swear I will herbey abstain from any sense of humor for the rest
of the EG. ;-)

Also I want to question who is not carefully following which discussions,
when counting how often I had to repeat my arguments in the past months...
and this evening in particular... (targeting this to the whole audience).
This is not to start a flame war, it is just to explain that I might have
missed some mails caused by the fact that I had to explain again and again
what is needed to make slashes work, and what is needed to make filters
work, and getting tired about this slowly.