Ok, so I ran through a trial using Restangular and using the angular 1.2 release candidate's $resources.
My complaints about restangular are that it feels a bit heavyweight for what we need, and that it makes me think about my models in http terms - all of the verbs in the api are .put, post and so on. Overall it gives good functionality but doesn't feel like a great fit - especially since by 1.2 all of the compelling arguments for using it mostly go away. 1.2 $resources cover what we need well, but unfortunately the 1.2 release is not stable yet. Some fundamental functionality is broken, and I think it doesn't make sense to put us on snapshot builds at this point. In the end I've gone with us putting us on angular 1.1.5. I've written a base RaveResource class that delegates to $resource and implements the common functionality to all resources - an update method with PUT, the processing of api responses to remove the wrapper and so on. This does leave us with some future technical debt, in the sense that routing resolver is manually making promises at the moment. If / when 1.2 is stable and we choose to upgrade, we can simplify that code by using the resources exposed $promise attribute. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Rohit Kalkur <[email protected]> wrote: > This looks like a really robust library for resources Erin! Has some > additional types of methods you can call on a promise as well. Looks like > it would be at least worth trying. > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Michael Jett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good find Erin. I think this is definitely something worth exploring. >> "Restangular supports method chaining to build complex requests." (drool) >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Erin Noe-Payne >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < >> > [email protected]>wrote: >> > > >> > >> Yeah all good points Chris. We are on 1.0.x which is officially the >> last >> > >> stable release, but maybe it makes sense to go to 1.1.6. >> > >> >> > > >> > > Erin, I trust you guys will make the right decision here. I was just >> > wanted >> > > to pass along what he said. He also said he wanted to try the library >> you >> > > suggested so who knows, he might want to switch us over as well. >> > > >> > Maybe. I actually prefer the $resource api but it felt like it was >> > lacking a bit. 1.2 has a release candidate out now so I'm going to >> > give it a try and see how it compares. >> > >> > >> >> > >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2013, Chris Geer wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < >> > >> [email protected]<javascript:;> >> > >> > >wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Hey All, >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Based on our discussion surrounding RAVE 1048 [1], I was looking >> at >> > >> > > how to improve our resource functionality to support PUT >> > operations. I >> > >> > > came across the Restangular library [2], which offers an >> alternative >> > >> > > to ngResource. Restangular resources provide out of the box >> support >> > >> > > for PUT and PATCH methods, and return promises rather than empty >> > >> > > objects, which means they work better with the resolve arguments >> for >> > >> > > routing and controllers. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I'm going to try it out and submit a patch with the changes so >> > anyone >> > >> > > who is interested can compare - but weigh in now if you have any >> > >> > > opinion. >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > FYI - I asked my UI engineer about this seeing if he wanted to use >> it >> > >> > internally and this was his response for what it's worth. >> > >> > >> > >> > One thing to note is that we are using angular 1.1.5 and the code >> has >> > >> been >> > >> > written in a way to easily move to angular 1.2 once it is finalized. >> > In >> > >> > angular 1.2 the $resource does return a promise making it a tough to >> > >> beat. >> > >> > Also the core angular team has focused a lot on the $http and >> > $resource >> > >> > during the 1.2 development resulting in several breaking changes. >> So >> > I >> > >> > would be concerned that this plugin may not be on the same course as >> > the >> > >> > angular team. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Erin >> > >> > > >> > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAVE-1048 >> > >> > > [2] https://github.com/mgonto/restangular >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >>
