Are you overriding allowPut() in your Resource class? You need to do as such:
@Override
public boolean allowPut() {
return true;
}
On Jan 13, 2008 10:20 PM, Rhett Sutphin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm designing & implementing my first REST-style API. It's for an
> existing application. I'm using Restlet 1.1-M1 and have found it very
> cleanly designed and easy to use.
>
> I've run into a problem where I can't seem to implement one of the
> resources in the way that makes most sense to me because Restlet's
> Resource considers a PUT without an entity to be automatically invalid
> (i.e., it responds with 400 Bad Request before calling
> storeRepresentation). I hope if I can explain what I'm trying to do,
> someone can suggest a better way, or at least explain why what I'm
> trying is wrong.
>
> The resource in question represents a link between instances of two
> other resources. Relationally, the link is many-to-many and is not
> logically owned by one end or the other of the relationship. The link
> logically contains two collections of other resources, but neither of
> them is known at the time the link itself is created. (In fact, the
> user group which can create the link is different from the ones which
> can update the collections.) I'm trying to implement the API like this:
>
> /resource1/{r1_identifier}
> - GET: XML representation of resource1
> - PUT: XML rep to create or update
> /resource2/{r2_identifier}
> - GET: XML representation of resource2
> - PUT: XML rep to create or update
> /resource1/{r1_identifier}/resource2/{r2_identifier} <-- the link
> resource
> - GET: return 200 if the link exists or 404 if it doesn't
> - PUT: create link if both r1 and r2 exist
> - DELETE: delete link
> /resource1/{r1_identifier}/resource2/{r2_identifier}/collection1
> - GET: XML rep of collection
> - POST: add to collection
> /resource1/{r1_identifier}/resource2/{r2_identifier}/collection2
> - GET: XML rep of collection
> - POST: add to collection
>
> The key thing here, I think, is that write access to the /resource1/
> {r1_identifier}/resource2/{r2_identifier} is limited to one group of
> users. Read and write access to the collections belongs to another
> group, so they have to be separate resources -- they can't be treated
> as part of the link resource.
>
> Is there a better way to model the resources in this case? Or is it
> reasonable to have PUT without an entity (i.e., restlet needs to be
> changed)? I know that, e.g., Amazon S3 supports PUT without an entity
> to create a bucket with default settings. The HTTP spec seems
> ambiguous on this point -- it says PUT should accept the entity as the
> new representation of the resource, but it never says that the entity
> has to be non-empty (RFC2616 section 9.6).
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Rhett
>
