Hmm... I'm not convinced yet, but I see what you want to achieve. I need to think more about it. Would you care filing an issue?
Marek
On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> wrote:
> That's fine too. I actually think you should remove configuraion() from Invocation.Builder and just have the property() method I proposed.
>
> On 10/25/2012 5:15 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>> Just a thought: Maybe we need to distinguish between request and configuration properties in general?
>>
>> Marek
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have some features that require setting a request property. It is a bit awkward in the current API:
>>>
>>> WebTarget target = ...;
>>> Invocation.Builder request = target.request();
>>> request.configuration().setProperty("custom", "value");
>>> Response response = request.get();
>>>
>>> Would be cool, if there were a property() method on Invocation.Builder:
>>>
>>> Response response = client.target(...).request().property("custom", "value").get();
>>>
>>> I'll log a JIRA if people agree.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bill Burke
>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com