I see.
I can think of two options:
1.) Instead of sending a PUT to
/resource1/{r1_identifier}/resource2/{r2_identifier}, you could try
sending a PUT to /resource1/{r1_identifier}/resource2/ with
{r2_identifier} as the entity body?
2.) Send a default entity body so the request goes through.
My interpretation of the spec is that an entity is required for a PUT
On Jan 14, 2008 10:14 AM, Rhett Sutphin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Jan 14, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Kevin Conaway wrote:
>
> > Are you overriding allowPut() in your Resource class? You need to
> > do as such:
> >
> > @Override
> > public boolean allowPut() {
> > return true;
> > }
>
> I should have been more clear -- the scheme I described works fine if
> there's an entity provided to the PUT. Any entity at all will do -- I
> have the Resource#storeRepresentation implementation just ignore it.
>
> The specific code which returns 400 for empty entities is in
> Resource#handlePut (starting at line 567 in 1.1-M1):
>
> > if (canPut) {
> > if (getRequest().isEntityAvailable()) {
> > put(getRequest().getEntity());
> >
> > // HTTP spec says that PUT may return
> > // the list of allowed methods
> > updateAllowedMethods();
> > } else {
> > getResponse().setStatus(
> > new Status(Status.CLIENT_ERROR_BAD_REQUEST,
> > "Missing request entity"));
> > }
> > }
>
> Thanks,
> Rhett
>
