On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> - Simple solution: All rest response models are flat. We ignore any >> nested data, and just have separate endpoints to deliver that data. >> I.E. Every model in the org.apache.rave.rest.model package has only >> properties of "primitive" types, with no lists, no other classes. That >> is NOT currently the case. Then the fields interceptor checks for the >> presence of a fields argument. If not present, the object is delivered >> as is. If present the argument (a string) is split by comma and only >> the matched properties are delivered. The fields qs argument only has >> to support comma-delimited list of property names. >> Ex: ?fields=name,pageType >> //returns a page or pages with only name and pageType properties >> > > I like the simple solution. I think the CRUD part of the API should be as > flat as possible like Erin suggested and we have "special" end points to > get back hierarchical data when needed, i.e. page rendering. >
Just to make sure we are on the same page, my proposal is that in both cases a get request without any special query string will return only flat data. The difference is that in the second case the fields query parameter will support a syntax that CAN deliver nested data in a single request. >> >> - Complicated solution: All rest response models include references to >> their nested data. This is the currently the case, and can be seen in >> org.apache.rave.rest.model.Page. The fields interceptor checks for >> presence of fields qs argument. If not present it strips all nested >> data from the models and only returns properties. If it is present, it >> parses the argument and updates the data. The fields argument needs to >> support a more complicated syntax that allows the requesting of nested >> data. I would copy the syntax of facebook's graph search api, which >> has a pretty readable solution. You allow for .fields and .limit on >> fields, which can be nested. >> Ex: >> ?fields=name,pageType,regions.limit(2).fields(regionWidgets.fields(widgetId,locked)) >> //returns a page or pages with name and pageType properties, nested >> list of regions (max of 2) with nested list of regionWidgets with only >> properties of widgetId and locked >> >> In all cases, id should always be returned. >> I think the algorithm in the simple solution is easy. >> In a sense the algorithm in the second should be simple, because the >> service layer is already getting all the nested data, and you are just >> stripping it off. Not sure what the performance implications of that >> are though. >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Erin Noe-Payne >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> Going back to the discussion on field selection - I am currently going >> >> through the exercise of writing out the Resource interfaces to define >> >> our endpoints. There is a set of generic query string parameters that >> >> we wish to support on all or many of the endpoints - fields (any get >> >> request), limit / offset (any get request that returns a list). >> >> >> >> Rather than writing each endpoint to accept QueryParam()'s and repeat >> >> the appropriate logic, I assume we would want to take advantage of cxf >> >> interceptors [1] to intelligently and generically handle those qs >> >> arguments? >> >> >> > >> > I like the concept but I'm not sure how we generically filter, especially >> > with nested data. I'd love to see it work that way though. Interceptors >> are >> > pretty easy to use, it's the filter algorithm I haven't figured out yet. >> > Thoughts? >> > >> >> >> >> [1] http://cxf.apache.org/docs/interceptors.html >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Erin Noe-Payne >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Ok, so the endpoint is now working. Any thoughts about the >> >> > JsonResponseWrapper approach? Does that seem like the best way to get >> >> > wrapped responses? >> >> > >> >> > For the next step I would like to start writing out all of the >> >> > resource interfaces so that we can begin writing angular $resource >> >> > services against them. >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Erin Noe-Payne >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Awesome, thanks Chris. Not sure I would have ever figured that one >> >> out... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Erin, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I got it working, at least the CXF part. Couple things: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> 1) In the interface, make sure to annotate the @GET methods >> >> >>> 2) In your DefaultRegionWidgetsResource class, remove the @ParamPath >> >> >>> attributes from variable signatures. I know Intellij puts those in >> >> there >> >> >>> but they cause problems. Only the interface should be annotated. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Chris >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < >> >> [email protected]>wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> Review board is not accepting my patch and is not accepting the >> valid >> >> >>>> file paths. I have attached the patch as a file to the review. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected] >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >>>> > Erin, I'm not seeing a patch posted up there. >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < >> >> >>>> [email protected]>wrote: >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> >> I was never able to hit the endpoint as expected. I've posted >> the >> >> >>>> >> patch on the review board if anyone can take a look and offer >> >> advice - >> >> >>>> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/12777/. >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> Thanks >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Chris Geer < >> [email protected] >> >> > >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> > On Friday, July 19, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote: >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Chris Geer < >> >> [email protected] >> >> >>>> >> <javascript:;>> >> >> >>>> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> > In the xml file you need to create the bean, then reference >> >> it in >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>> >> >> > server element near the top. Other than that...no, that >> >> should be >> >> >>>> >> all. I >> >> >>>> >> >> > assume you set the Path attribute on the resource. >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> I did. I'm also messing around with the service injection, >> >> which may >> >> >>>> >> >> be the issue. Haven't gotten it to work yet though. >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > I thought we were going to do >> >> >>>> >> pages/<id>/regions/<id>/regionwidgets/<id> >> >> >>>> >> >> > since it makes no sense to manage a region widget outside a >> >> region >> >> >>>> >> >> outside >> >> >>>> >> >> > a page? >> >> >>>> >> >> Possibly. Right now I'm just trying to do a proof of concept >> >> with >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>> >> >> wrapped json object so I picked something simple with the >> >> service and >> >> >>>> >> >> rest models already in place. >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> In general though I don't see any value to dealing with >> region >> >> >>>> widgets >> >> >>>> >> >> as a nested resource (pages/:id/regions/:id...) over just >> >> dealing >> >> >>>> with >> >> >>>> >> >> them directly. It's just adding weight to the pages >> controller, >> >> >>>> rather >> >> >>>> >> >> than breaking them up and dealing with resource concerns >> >> separately. >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> I get what you're saying about regions and regionwidgets only >> >> making >> >> >>>> >> >> sense in the context of a page, but you could say the same >> >> thing for >> >> >>>> >> >> any 1-many associated resource. Both entities are always >> >> uniquely >> >> >>>> >> >> identified, so why not deal with them individually? I see an >> >> upside >> >> >>>> of >> >> >>>> >> >> simpler code, consistent api endpoints, and I see no >> downside. >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> >> > Honestly, my hope is that someday they aren't uniquely >> >> identified and >> >> >>>> are >> >> >>>> >> > really sun objects unlike JPA today. But that is a longer >> >> >>>> conversation. >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Erin Noe-Payne >> >> >>>> >> >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
