Hi Jason, thanks for your feedback!
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:48 PM Jason E Bailey <j...@apache.org> wrote: > ...To restate. Given a resource, you should be able to define what properties > that resource can contain and what child resources it can be the parent of... Yes, among other things including some that we might discover along the way. > ...1. There's some things that are implicit. For example, stating that a > resource can be a parent of a resource would imply > that you could perform the action to create the child resource.... Absolutely, which means we can generate hyperlinks for such operations automatically. >... We're still a REST platform, do we need to have actions that are different >then the standard REST methods? Would we have something different?... I think actions can be more specific, at least in terms of their link:rel values. A hyperlink can say link:rel=sling.create.imagefolder, method=POST, path=./images as basically it, along with the Sling Type System (STS) typedef, needs to contain enough information to generate an HTML form when generating a UI. maybe...just thinking outloud, but basically an action can have a more specific name than POST to clarify what it does exactly. > ...Looking at the code, I get confused between a type for a resource and a > sling:resourceType. I believe these are different things.... I think it's fair to describe the code as a hack created when those ideas where still emerging ;-) My point of view is that a resourceType points to an STS typedef, which conceptually points to rendering scripts or servlets. That's conceptually...in practice I think we can keep the current script resolution mechanism, but the STS typedef might validate operations before passing them on. Does that address your concerns? That's all still vague for now anyway, needs to be defined more clearly and proven with prototypes. -Bertrand
