On 07/11/2013 11:16 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2013, at 16:41, cowwoc <cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org
> <mailto:cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> Are you proposing adding the necessary API methods but throwing
>> RuntimeExceptions unless some flag is set? I would support this
>> approach, although in practice I don't think you'll need such a flag
>> because we're talking about legal requests. Whether a request is
>> "legal but non-sense" is a subjective matter.
>
> What I'm thinking is to make a flag (which could be by default enabled
> in the Jersey test client and) that would make sure Jersey is not
> trying to remove any headers. (Even though in this case I think we
> have a different problem - look at the post(...) method javadoc and
> the sentece about overwriting Content-* headers; there is also a
> related bug filed on that already, IIRC).
I see the problem (Content-* headers) but perhaps we can exploit a hole
in the specification. If the entity does not provide a Content-Type then
there is nothing to set, hence no overwriting takes place.
PS: I couldn't find the relevant bug report. Where is it?
>
>> To prove my point, I'll provide you with specific examples for the
>> use-cases I was inquiring about:
>>
>> * POST with a Content-Type but no body
>> o When a parent resource may be used to create different kinds
>> of child resources, the Content-Type is used to specify which
>> kind of resource to create.
>>
> That is not very RESTful. Representation should not drive the resource
> "type".
Where does it say that?
>> o
>>
>>
>> o Example
>> + Create a new "terminal" by invoking POST /companies/5
>> with Content-Type: application/vnd.company.terminal
>> + Create a new "expense report" by invoking POST
>> /companies/5 with Content-Type:
>> application/vnd.company.expense-report
>>
> Yuck! I certainly would not want to support the above, or make it any
> easier to support that. If you want to create new resources like this,
> you should better design a separate "collection" URIs for that -
> /companies/5/teminals , /companies/5/expense-reports
I think I can make this change, but I don't think it's right for Jersey
to be opinionated. The REST community has many different opinions on the
"right way" of doing things. If we're going to start eliminating
functionality based on individual opinions we're going to anger a lot of
users.
>> * POST without either a Content-Type or body
>> o Used to insert a new element into a collection (there is no
>> confusion about the kind of child resource being created).
>> o Example: Create a new "transaction" by invoking POST
>> /transactions: http://stackoverflow.com/a/147299/14731
>>
> This is doable, right?
I'm not sure. Are you expecting me to pass null into entity or
MediaType in this method?
https://jersey.java.net/apidocs/snapshot/jersey/javax/ws/rs/client/Entity.html#entity(T,
javax.ws.rs.core.MediaType)
<
https://jersey.java.net/apidocs/snapshot/jersey/javax/ws/rs/client/Entity.html#entity%28T,%20javax.ws.rs.core.MediaType%29>
If so, the Javadoc should really mention that passing null is an
acceptable way to omit the field.
Thanks,
Gili