Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley_at_sun.com
> <mailto:Marc.Hadley_at_sun.com>> wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Having said all that, it is the responsibility of the web framework
> to map those HTTP semantics onto the actual actions taken to reflect
> those requests within its internal values and configuration.
> The best
> way to do that is to treat each URI as an individual resource first
> and use the method to select the handler defined by that resource.
> For example, a specific resource would have specific implementations
> of GET, PUT, DELETE, ... whereas a generic resource would have a
> very
> different implementation of those methods. AFAICT, that should be
> easy for JSR311 to provide through inheritance and overrides.
>
> Given the above I think the only reasonable thing to do right now is
> to remove the automatic URI-based conneg feature. Even limiting it
> to safe operation would violate the mapping of specific resources to
> generic resource classes. If we had a longer than the two weeks
> remaining before proposed final draft we could perhaps investigate
> other approaches but that's not an option for this rev of the
> specification.
>
>
> I think we'd be better off doing this; the resources "faking" conneg via
> URI has always sit uneasy with me.
>
+1 It's always been uneasy for me as well.
Bill
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com