Hey David,
Ok splendid - another alternative it is. FYI - I added a few more HTTP code representations to HttpResponse.scala last night... Nothing crazy, but just some other ones I needed. I also need to add some extra parameters to some of them so they directly represent the RFC spec, but they are OK for the moment :-) Cheers Tim On 31/01/2009 15:48, "David Pollak" <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tim, > > Please don't change the existing XMLApiHelpers, but feel free to create an > alternative. I expect different people are going to have different styles and > providing them with lots of alternatives will be important. > > I'm planning another alternative that will returns failures as different HTTP > codes to make things more RESTful. > > Thanks, > > David > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Tim Perrett <he...@timperrett.com> wrote: >> >> Guys, >> >> Just doing some work with the XMLApiHelper and im finding some things >> that can be improved. For instance, the trait provides createTag which >> you then have to override like so: >> >> def createTag(in: NodeSeq) = <api>{in}</api> >> >> IMO, it seems that this isnt ideal as if you were returning a list of >> users, your xml would be: >> >> <api> >> <user>....</user> >> <user>....</user> >> </api> >> >> It would be better to have a configurable root node, so its a more >> logical semantic: >> >> <users> >> <user>....</user> >> <user>....</user> >> </users> >> >> I've been playing around with the best way to do it and by changing >> the implicits and the xml build methods I now have it so that you can >> do: >> >> def listAllUsers = { >> ... >> ("users", listOfUsers) >> } >> >> This appears to be the best way to do it, otherwise things start >> getting messy? >> >> Whilst I can make these changes code wise, im very aware that ESME >> uses this helper a lot and this would mean some significant breaking >> changes in the api construction, both for ESME, and no doubt other >> projects. IMHO, the change is worth the hassle as it will make >> services up of more logically formed xml. >> >> What are people's thoughts? >> >> Cheers >> >> Tim >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---