I'm trying to register a new endpoint for regionWidgets. I've added the interface and default implementation, and created / registered the bean in cxf-applicationContext.xml.
However, when I hit the endpoint I get an error: [INFO] [talledLocalContainer] WARN : org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.utils.JAXRSUtils - No operation matching request path "/portal/api/rest/regionWidgets/1" is found, Relative Path: /1, HTTP Method: GET, ContentType: */*, Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8,. Please enable FINE/TRACE log level for more details. Is there anything else I need to do in order to create and register a new endpoint? On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Erin Noe-Payne >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Erin Noe-Payne >>> >> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Any further discussion here? I would like to start implementing more >>> >> > of the REST APIs, as it is foundational for the entire angular >>> >> > architecture. >>> >> > >>> >> > My understanding from Matt is that the current apis in trunk are >>> >> > mostly proof of concept - they are not tested and much of the >>> >> > functionality is just stubbed. Are any of the rest api implementations >>> >> > in the code base a good working example? Is there other documentation >>> >> > we can reference? >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> I've been working on the People resource as a "reference" of how I'd >>> like >>> >> to see them done but it's still a work in progress. I need to go back >>> and >>> >> pull out the JSONView stuff and reimplement the "fields" concept. >>> Couple of >>> >> notes: >>> >> >>> >> - Object representations should be as flat as possible >>> >> and separate requests should be made to nested resources to get nested >>> >> details (i.e. if you have regions and regions/1/regionwidgets, the >>> regions >>> >> representation should not contain an array of regionwidgets) >>> >> >>> > >>> > I am concerned about the round trips to support this when rendering the >>> > page. With any page that has a sufficient number of gadgets, adding to >>> the >>> > number of requests becomes problematic. >>> > >>> >>> I see that rule applying to the "standard" rest endpoints for crud >>> operations on resources. We will have some number of special endpoints >>> to support frequently used operations of clients. The major example >>> there is the page / pages for render endpoint, which will include the >>> nested regions, regionwidgets, and their rpc tokens, etc. >>> >> >> +1 > > So my thought is that we have the standard crud endpoints for all > individual resources. For frequently-used read operations in which we > need composite data sets we will have a small number of custom > endpoints to serve that data. Those are read-only endpoints, they will > not support create / update / delete operations. > > At a time when we need one of our composite data views, such as on a > page load, the client will make a request and get the composite data - > page, regions, regionwidgets and so on. The client can decompose those > into the individual component resources which have corresponding > angular $resource services, and which talk to the standard endpoints > to support further crud operations on them. > > Make sense / thoughts? > >> >>> >>> > >>> >> - All methods should return standard HTTP codes. We should document >>> this >>> >> further on the wiki to make sure we all do the same way. >>> >> - We won't accept partial updates with PUT, we will eventually add >>> PATCH >>> >> to support that in the future >>> >> - If the "fields" query attribute isn't included in a GET then all >>> fields >>> >> are returned. >>> >> - What is the full meta structure we want to return? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Erin Noe-Payne >>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Matt Franklin < >>> >> [email protected]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> +1 for every one of Chris' +1s, unless otherwise noted. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected] >>> > >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>> Oh boy!! :) >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> Comments inline >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < >>> >> > [email protected] >>> >> > >>> >wrote: >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > Hey All, >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > As we are starting to look at the rest apis in more detail, I >>> would >>> >> > >>> > like to discuss and agree upon a consistent interface for our >>> apis. >>> >> > >>> > We currently have several developers interested in contributing >>> to >>> >> > the >>> >> > >>> > apis and the angular branch, and I would like to solidify the >>> >> > >>> > interface, methods, response format, etc so that we can be on >>> the >>> >> > same >>> >> > >>> > page going forward. If we can agree on an api virtualization >>> layer >>> >> > >>> > then we should be able to build against it on the server and on >>> the >>> >> > >>> > angular application in parallel. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > I'll start with a proposal and look for feedback to iterate from >>> >> > there. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 1. API root url >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > "/api". Drop support for rpc api, move from /api/rest to just >>> /api. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 - the only downside of this is that it prohibits implementing >>> over >>> >> > time >>> >> > >>> and requires a rip/replace approach of the whole system >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Well the development in trunk can continue to happen on /rest. >>> Angular >>> >> > > (aka the consuming client for most of these apis) is already >>> happening >>> >> > > in a branch, so those changes can be treated as a rip / replace >>> >> > > easily. >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 2. Media Types >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > Initially support only application/json. We can revisit >>> >> > >>> > application/xml as a nice-to-have. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 3. HTTP Methods >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > GET, PUT, POST, DELETE >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 (We also need to decide if PUT can handle partial updates) >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I say not. That is what PATCH is for, once everything supports it: >>> >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789 >>> >> > > >>> >> > > My understanding is that PUT should always be a full object >>> replace. A >>> >> > > quick search returns the suggestion to use PATCH, or to use POST to >>> a >>> >> > > subresource with a 303 response. >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 4. Status Codes >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 200, 201, 400, 401, 403, 404, 500 >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 5. URL formats >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > Use plural nouns (pages, people, widgets). Do not nest >>> associations >>> >> > >>> > beyond one level deep. For example: >>> >> > >>> > /pages/1/regions (ok) >>> >> > >>> > /pages/1/regions/2/regionwidgets (not ok) >>> >> > >>> > /regions/2/regionwidgets (ok) >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> I'm not a fan of this requirement. Your example is the exact >>> reason >>> >> > I'm not >>> >> > >>> a fan actually. In all reality, regions don't mean anything >>> outside a >>> >> > page, >>> >> > >>> and region widgets don't mean anything outside of a region. Yes, >>> they >>> >> > have >>> >> > >>> IDs, but in reality, those IDs should be subordinate to the parent >>> >> (so >>> >> > >>> there should be nothing wrong with having Page 1 with regions >>> [1,2] >>> >> and >>> >> > >>> Page 2 with regions [1,2]). I understand that's not how the DB >>> works >>> >> > today >>> >> > >>> but it's what makes the most logical sense. >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I agree with Chris. We should not limit to a single level. That is >>> >> > counter >>> >> > >> to a few REST web service principles. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Fair enough. In this case I guess I would just be looking for >>> >> > > consistency - will associations be infinitely nest-able. If not, >>> what >>> >> > > is the rule to determine where we support more or less deeply nested >>> >> > > associations. >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 6. Response formats >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 6a. Wrap all responses in an object. All valid (200) responses >>> >> should >>> >> > >>> > be wrapped in an object that includes a "meta" object for >>> metadata, >>> >> > >>> > and a "data" object for the response body. This allows us to >>> >> capture >>> >> > >>> > or extend metadata associated with a response as needed. Any >>> >> metadata >>> >> > >>> > properties should be standardized. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > Example: >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people >>> >> > >>> > { >>> >> > >>> > meta: {count: 253, limit: 10, offset: 0, ...} >>> >> > >>> > data: [ {id: 1, name: 'canonical', ...}, ... ] >>> >> > >>> > } >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/1 >>> >> > >>> > { >>> >> > >>> > meta: { ... } >>> >> > >>> > data: {id:1, name: 'canonical', ...} >>> >> > >>> > } >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> This really complicates a couple things, first, it means the GET >>> != >>> >> PUT >>> >> > >>> since the GET will include the meta data. Can we achieve this same >>> >> > result >>> >> > >>> with HTTP Headers? >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >> > > We could possibly achieve the same with HTTP headers. I prefer the >>> >> > > object approach for clarity, since custom http headers are less >>> >> > > accessible or discoverable than object structure. I get your point, >>> >> > > but I see the wrapped object approach used commonly in major apis. >>> If >>> >> > > it's clearly documented and used consistently across the entire api >>> I >>> >> > > don't really see an issue. >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 6b. Error objects. In the case of an error, the correct error >>> code >>> >> > >>> > should be returned. In addition, an error object should be >>> returned >>> >> > >>> > with a standardized format. Ideally including a verbose, >>> >> > >>> > human-readable error message for developers, and an >>> >> internationalized >>> >> > >>> > readable error message for display to end users. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/25 >>> >> > >>> > 401 >>> >> > >>> > { >>> >> > >>> > developerMessage: 'Unauthorized. Access to this resource >>> requires >>> >> > >>> > authentication', >>> >> > >>> > userMessage: 'Please login', >>> >> > >>> > stackTrace: ... >>> >> > >>> > } >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 6c. Partial responses. By default all responses, whether a list >>> or >>> >> > >>> > individual resource, should return a full representation of the >>> >> > >>> > resources (not including security constraints). All endpoints >>> >> should >>> >> > >>> > support the query string parameter "fields", which accepts a >>> comma >>> >> > >>> > delimited list of fields to build a partial response. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> Hmmm.....what's funny (except for the wasted work) is this is how >>> I >>> >> > >>> originally built the people resource. I changed it because the >>> >> > "fields" >>> >> > >>> approach gets almost impossible to manage with nested elements (at >>> >> > least in >>> >> > >>> Java - rewrite in Ruby anyone??). I'm open to suggestions though. >>> I >>> >> > guess >>> >> > >>> we could also make a rule that the data objects shouldn't have >>> nested >>> >> > >>> elements but that is a tough rule. >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I think the fields approach makes sense long-term; but, it is not >>> >> > critical. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I don't really know what the implementation looks like. If you allow >>> >> > > field filtering only on properties and deliver only properties (i.e. >>> >> > > no nested objects / associations) then I would assume it is pretty >>> >> > > straightforward. >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/1 >>> >> > >>> > { >>> >> > >>> > meta: { ... }, >>> >> > >>> > data: { id: 1, name: 'canonical', email: '[email protected] >>> ', >>> >> > ... } >>> >> > >>> > } >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/1?fields=id,name >>> >> > >>> > { >>> >> > >>> > meta: { ... }, >>> >> > >>> > data: { id: 1, name: 'canonical' } >>> >> > >>> > } >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 6d. Pagination. All requests that return a list should be >>> >> paginated. >>> >> > >>> > The query string parameters "limit" and "offset" should be used >>> for >>> >> > >>> > pagination. On any request in which either parameter is not set, >>> >> they >>> >> > >>> > should default to 10 and 0 respectively. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 6e. Use camelCase for properties. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 7. Endpoints. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 7a. Standard endpoints: there should be standard CRUD endpoints >>> to >>> >> > >>> > support each rave resource. In other words, any operation >>> possible >>> >> in >>> >> > >>> > rave should be possible through a rest api action. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > 7b. Special endpoints. In the case of certain client needs, we >>> can >>> >> > >>> > implement a small number of special endpoints to fulfill a >>> specific >>> >> > >>> > role. The primary case in point is retrieving a page for render, >>> >> > which >>> >> > >>> > returns a page, its regions, its regionWidgets, and their render >>> >> > data. >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> +1 >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > Ok, I think that's it. This is meant as a proposal only - we are >>> >> > >>> > looking for feedback to go forward. Thoughts? >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>>
