On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected]>wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure how to proceed at the moment. For now I will > start work at the repository layer and try to implement consistent > crud operations to support the REST api. > Erin, on the CXF 2.7 migration page I saw this. - org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.RequestHandler and org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.ext.ResponseHandler (use javax.ws.rs.container.ContainerRequestFilter and javax.ws.rs.container.ContainerResponseFilter instead). So, it looks like the docs are a little out of date. The ContainerResponseFilter handler method gets two params, Request Context and Response Context. That might give you what you need. I haven't played with it yet but it's worth a look. Chris > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What about this: > >> > >> > http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-filters.html#JAX-RSFilters-OverridingrequestURI%2Cqueryandheaders > >> > > > > This is referring to a RequestHandler, not a ResponseHandler. In the > > request handler the Message object does have correct request uri data, > > etc, but I don't have access to the Response object yet. > > > >> The only thing I don't like about not returning Response objects is it > >> doesn't let the method set HTTP specific stuff. Which just means we need > >> really really good filters. For example, a create should set the > Location > >> HTTP header field with the proper URL to the newly created object. > >> > > > > That's fair. And the controllers could return response objects and > > following filters could just iteratively return > > Response.fromResponse(). But if we take a step back from filters or > > interceptors or whatever implementation approach, here's the problem > > I'm trying to solve: > > > > Taking your Location header example - all requests to get or create an > > entity should have the location header set to the canonical url of the > > resource. Post requests creating a new resource should have a location > > header pointing to the newly created resource. That is universally > > true, and I should be able to write that code generically. I do not > > want to have to set the location header in every controller for every > > resource that handles the @POST method. That seems like it should be > > doable, and filters or interceptors seemed like the way to do it. Now > > I'm not so sure. > > > > So is that a goal worth pursuing, and if yes what is the right approach? > > > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Erin Noe-Payne < > [email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>> Ok, I'm having trouble setting up filters that are able to access > >>> query string parameters to do pagination. I've submitted a review > >>> request [1] with my work so far (look at pages, categories, and the > >>> filters). My plan was the following workflow - > >>> > >>> - Request is received and processed by the controller. Controller > >>> returns an object <T> or List<T> (Page, Category, etc). For any list > >>> resource it gets all entities, and allows the pagination filter to > >>> subset. > >>> - JsonWrapperResponseFilter process the request and wraps the data > >>> object in the wrapper object > >>> - PaginationResponseFilter checks if the data object is a list. It > >>> retrieves the values of limit and offset QS parameters or sets them to > >>> defaults. It then subsets the data and sets appropriate meta fields in > >>> the json object. > >>> > >>> The issue is that the response handler does not give me access (as far > >>> as I can tell) to the query string values. Which makes me think I'm > >>> missing something, or that this is the wrong way to approach the > >>> problem. Any help or input is appreciated. > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/12901/ > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > Good point...I forgot Rave is using CXF 2.7.x which includes that new > >>> > stuff. That would be a better choice, plus it wouldn't tie us to CXF. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Erin Noe-Payne > >>> > <[email protected]>wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Slight update on this journey of discovery - it looks like what we > >>> >> actually want to use is not interceptors, but jaxrs filters. See: > >>> >> http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-filters.html > >>> >> > >>> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected] > > > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Erin Noe-Payne < > >>> >> [email protected]>wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Chris Geer < > [email protected]> > >>> >> >> wrote: > >>> >> >> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < > >>> >> >> [email protected]>wrote: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> 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. > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > That confuses me. I thought the whole point of the "special" > end > >>> point > >>> >> >> was > >>> >> >> > to handle things like page rendering in one query which would > >>> require > >>> >> >> > hierarchical data every time. Why force the use of query string > >>> >> params to > >>> >> >> > get that? > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I was speaking in reference to the standard endpoints. The > >>> >> >> page(s)ForRender endpoint is a special endpoint that serves a > >>> specific > >>> >> >> client need for a complex nested data set. It will always return > >>> >> >> hierarchical data, will probably not support field selection at > all. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> The standard endpoints will by default return flat data. They > will > >>> >> >> support field selection. If we choose to implement the more > complex > >>> >> >> field selection, then they will allow you to request nested data > >>> >> >> through the field selection syntax. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > ok > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> - 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 > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >
