On Dec 17, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Cemo Koc wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> For such a bean,
>
> public class AccountBean {
>
> @FormParam("acc.type")
> private Integer type;
>
> }
>
>
> I believe that Jersey should never return an error code 400. Because
> it is
> restricting the usage of Jersey. In my opinion:
>
> 1) In case sending a post value like this "acc.type=", it should
> inject
> null to Integer
>
>
> 2) In case sending a post value like this "acc.type=a1b2", it
> should inject
> null to Integer
>
How do we differentiate between the above two cases and the additional
case of an absent (optional) parameter?
There are four general cases for declaration of a parameter:
1) parameter is absent;
2) "acc.type"
3) "acc.type="
4) "acc.type=12"
plus an additional case for 2, 3 & 4 for multiple declarations of the
same parameter.
In my previous email I proposed that 2 and 3 should be considered
equivalent.
Then we have the two following cases:
1) Defining what is a required parameter, which has been brought up
before; and
2) Defining the behavior for an invalid parameter, when an instance
of a type cannot be constructed from the String value.
For 1) it has been proposed to support something like @Required.
For 2), the additional case you raised, it will obviously not be
possible for you to validate the integer value itself (unless you use
a String rather than Integer).
We could support an additional annotation like @NullOnInvalid.
Or we could support a wrapper class e.g.:
@FormParam Wrapper<Integer> i;
where "i" will be non-null if the parameter is present, i.get will
thrown an exception if the value is invalid and will return null if
the parameter has no value.
> I think that It might call constructor of Integer with an empty
> string.
Yes.
> And
> then if it raises an exception, it should simply inject null value.
I think there is more to this area to take into consideration as i
have suggested above.
> But in
> our case it is returning with 400. This is restricting our validation.
Agreed.
>
> In Jersey Java Doc this part of FormParam is not very clear.
>
Agreed it is defined in the spec, but should also be in the JavaDoc:
https://jsr311.dev.java.net/nonav/releases/1.1/spec/
spec3.html#x3-220003.2
> And what If I want to use a custom validation logic such as JSR-303
> in this
> fields, what is your proposal?
>
Currently, i think the only way is to resort to using String. But i
would like to implement an appropriate solution to improve this area.
Paul.