Hello...
Thanks to everyone for all the useful information on the Apache Atlas site
to-date. Recently I started experimenting with Atlas, using the REST API,
and establishing some of my own types and then reviewing their metadata.
I was able to get things working for the currently published REST calls,
but would like to know more about the formatting of the payloads. The
returned JSON payload is valid but embeds further JSON that "appears" to
have additional formatting --- is this something that is handled
automatically by some of the (presumably java) existing client
tooling? ...or maybe I should have passed another argument or made a
different call that would pass back a straight text response?
Here is a snippet of the sample response I received....
{"requestId":"qtp430472391-17 -
12f1518c-fdac-4a50-a23a-f56af47ee069","GUID":"1731e6e8-ee11-4fc0-b86a-e83f08d67981","definition":"{\n
\"jsonClass\":\"org.apache.atlas.typesystem.json.InstanceSerialization
$_Reference\",\n \"id\":{\n \"jsonClass
\":\"org.apache.atlas.typesystem.json.InstanceSerialization$_Id\",\n
\"id\":\"1731e6e8-ee11-4fc0-b86a-e83f08d67981\"....
Is there a historical reason for the further formatting of "definition"?
Is there a parameter I should be passing that I accidentally missed (that
would avoid this formatting)?
Thanks. Many of our customers are considering using REST calls from a
variety of tools and languages. This structure will require additional
parsing and formatting after breaking out the initial elements.
Ernie
Ernie Ostic
WW Product Specialist, Information Server
IBM Analytics
Cell: (617) 331 8238
---------------------------------------------------------------
Open IGC is here!
Extend the Catalog with custom objects and lineage definitions!
https://dsrealtime.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/open-igc-is-here/
