Luciano Resende wrote:
2) Do people have a preference for entity tag support for Tuscany based on
abstract classes or mix-in helper classes? The former style tends to make it
easy to extend a base collection type, overwrite a method or two, and run.
The latter style tends to give more flexibility, but then also requires that
the collection writer know the base APIs and how to use them. Any thoughts
appreciated.
Can you elaborate little more here ? So I can understand the problem
you are trying to solve ?
For item 2, I was originally thinking of providing classes to help
implement collections. However, I now realize this is not part of the
requirement.
So to refine the design, I will use the id and updated elements of Atom
feeds and entries to provide the HTTP header request and response ETag
and Last-Modified fields. With these fields and any provided request
header fields (If-Match, If-Modified-Since, etc.), I will enable the
Tuscany Atom binding to reduce the response body traffic over the binding.
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
