Jérôme,
I suppose I could specialize the Routerit hadnt occurred to me. For better or worse it seemed logical to me to use the standard router, and have a Resource dynamically binding the behaviors. The key is that the behaviors come in a handful of flavors, so I have a behavior interface and factory. You are right that I could move the abstraction up a level, I suppose. Note that some URIs are bound in a fixed standard way to the Router. The other advantage to the current approach is that there is just a very lightweight controller (a Resource), between the standard Router, and my standard behaviors. You can completely change the way the router works, or I can completely change the way the behaviors work, and maintenance on the controller is minimal. If I get to dynamically binding the URIs (user-specified routes), I will keep in mind if subclassing the Router is better or not. Frankly, the current controller would work just fine, the only issue is attaching/detaching the router on the fly, which on the surface doesnt really seem problematic. Cliff Binstock Coyote Reporting _____ From: Jerome Louvel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: uriPattern exactness Hi Cliff, Aren't you trying to develop a specialized Router? Router can be dynamically modified by adding/removing routes at runtime. If your routers (pattern + target resource) are externalized in an XML file, you could regularly look for changes and either: * update the existing router to match the changes * create a new router, configure it and plug it as a replacement of the previous one In the first case, you could simply write a Router subclass that would be very reusable. Best regards, Jérôme Louvel -- Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~ <http://www.restlet.org/> http://www.restlet.org Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~ <http://www.noelios.com/> http://www.noelios.com _____ De : Erik Beeson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mardi 21 octobre 2008 00:23 À : [email protected] Objet : Re: uriPattern exactness In what scenario (other than maybe development) do your routes change at runtime? --Erik On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Cliff Binstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jérôme, I thought of another reason why it would be *really nice* to know the matching URI pattern: I would like to be able to dynamically determine how to handle a resource request from a configuration. To simplify my actual use case, suppose for example that I implemented a default resource, and the default resource could look at, say, an external XML configuration file to determine which class to really call (dynamically). This external configuration might look like: <entry> <matching-uri-pattern>/foo/{foos}/bar</matching-uri-pattern> <invoke>com.coyotereporting.foo.Bar</invoke> </entry> Right now, I can see how to use the above to dynamically define *resources* once on startup, but not how to "abstract" this one level to have the default resource call different handlers on the fly. So, if I can add to the long term request list: 1) Get back the original URI (e.g., /foo/{foos}/bar) 2) Get back the "as-matched" URI (e.g., /foo/myFoo/bar). Note that #1 above (original URI Pattern), would enable a very flexible default handler. Cliff Binstock Coyote Reporting > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerome Louvel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: uriPattern exactness > > > Hi Cliff, > > In combination with MODE_EQUALS, you could also add a variable for your > extensions like: "/foos/{foo}/bar.{ext}". That could reduce the number of > alternative routes you would have to attach. > > Best regards, > Jerome Louvel > -- > Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~ http://www.restlet.org > Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~ http://www.noelios.com > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Cliff Binstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoye : vendredi 17 octobre 2008 01:28 > A : [email protected] > Objet : RE: uriPattern exactness > > Aron, > > Thanks, I didn't realize this was here. This would potentially work, and > I > may end up using it. > > Frankly, I want to be able to "have my cake and eat it too". An exact > match > using this construct would work, but would also force me to itemize every > possible variation of a path via router.attach(). I was hoping to do some > "fuzzy" enforcement in a base "Resource" class. > > Cliff Binstock > Coyote Reporting > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aron Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:37 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: uriPattern exactness > > > > In the message "Re: uriPattern exactness", dated 2008-10-16, Cliff > > Binstock wrote: > > > > >P.S. What is worse (maybe very confusing) is that this might match > too: > > >/foo/myFoo/bar/baz/bletch/fred.xml > > >Again, I would like to forcefully ensure that this doesn't end up > > matching. > > > > From memory - by default, the mode for matching incoming URIs to > > your URI templates is 'starts with' rather than 'equals'. > > > > As Jerome wrote back in February 2008: > > >In some cases, you might want to change this default mode, and this > > >is easy to do via the "defaultMatchingMode" property on Router, or by > > >modifying the "matchingMode" property of the template associated with > > >the route created by the Router.attach() methods. For the modes, you > can > > >use the Template.MODE_EQUALS or Template.MODE_STARTS_WITH constants." > > > > Here's one example of the latter: > > > > router.getTemplate().setMatchingMode(Template.MODE_EQUALS) > > > > Hope this is germane to your needs. > > > > Aron
