On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). > Thanks Chris, I'll take a look.
> > So, it looks like the docs are a little out of date.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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>
