On Feb 19, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>
>> Thinking aloud, an alternative might be to allow an unannotated
>> method parameter even for HTTP methods that don't have an entity
>> body. Then you could have a custom message body reader conjur up
>> the bean from whatever combination of request information is
>> appropriate. That would let you write:
>> @GET
>> public String get(CustomerPK pk) {
>> }
>> public class CustomerPK {
>> String first;
>> String last;
>> int ssn;
>> }
>> Not sure I like that, I think the current mapping from entity body
>> to parameter is quite natural and this might confuse that.
>
> I think that alternative should be allowed too. It really depends
> on whether you want to decouple your mappings or not. Providers
> decouple, annotations couple. Coupling isn't also a bad thing. You
> sould be aware of the distributed protocol. You can always delegate
> to business logic.
>
The nice thing about the above suggestion is that you can write an
annotation-aware provider so there'd be a portable way to create the
kind of binding support you are suggesting without our needing to bake
it into the API directly.
Marc.
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.