Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
Reinhard Poetz schrieb:
I think the problem here is that we have two sources and depending on
the context, one is the "main" source. But if it's only me having this
view on that, I won't argue for it any more.
<me-too/>
Any other opinions?
I tend to Reinhard's opinion: from the user POV the src should state the
service, because that is where I get my data from, ie. the data that is
used in the subsequent pipeline.
The important point is how this compares with a simple servlet call,
where I don't want to POST anything but simply retrieve data:
<generate src="servlet:something:/foo/bar" />
Or
<generate type="service" src="servlet:something:/foo/bar" />
So that you get access to original request in the service (see below...)
In this case you state the servlet as source. And this guides the user's
model when adding the POST-feature; thus it is more natural to think of
the POST as an addition, simply by using another generator and an
additional parameter (I'd name it "postData" to be more concise):
<generate type="servletService" src="servlet:something:/foo/bar">
<parameter name="postData" src="test.htm" />
</generate>
Only that seems logic to me...
Another question: did you think of the possibility of posting the
initial HTTP request body to the servlet service? Eg. having a postData
(or src) parameter like
<parameter name="postData" src="request:body" />
I'd hope that the default behavior would be to always *pass* the original
request forward to the service if this parameter is omitted.
I've used word 'pass' since original request could be GET, POST, PUT, ...
anything.
Vadim
???? A use case would be upon a PUT of some XML data from a client to a
server and as a first step you wanna send the XML to a validating service.
Alex
