I went though the code and looked what actually I have done then I found that the only problems in the resource operations like raring and tagging. Adding , delete and accessing resources does not have any issues, and it has follow the API in the wiki correctly [1] . Now I started to change the implementation to cope with the API in the wiki , but I have a number of area which I have doubt and need to clear them before I continue.
- How to get logs should that be /[r1];logs - Get versions /[r1];versions , then the text of the feed will be the versions for the given resource. - /[r1];tags:[tag+username] , I can not understand the use of this -For the rating and tagging what should be the structure of the entry . - Did we finalized on ";" as the parameter separator. [1] : http://wso2.org/wiki/display/registry/Registry+Protocol -Thanks Deepal > It is essential that we have a *perfect* implementation of APP here > and that it is clearly documented and /matches the documentation/! > > We have deliberately avoided the UDDI crowd here... so we can't afford > to annoy the REST community by bodging APP :) > > Paul > > Glen Daniels wrote: >> Hi Deepal, all: >> >> Deepal Jayasinghe wrote: >>>> Are we not using Abdera on the client side? >>> We do. >> >> Yep - and upon further research into the code it looks like we >> haven't paid much attention to the protocol design we did earlier: >> >> http://wso2.org/wiki/display/registry/Registry+Protocol >> >> Not only do we have the non-APP-ish use of POST to non-existent URLs >> (in order to create them), but for instance to tag, we seem to do a >> PUT of an Atom entry representing the tag to the resource URL - >> shouldn't that be a POST to "...resource;tags"? >> >>>> (Looks like we are given the user agent header.) So doesn't Abdera do >>>> the right thing for this?? >> >> Abdera is apparently a little (too?) flexible about this kind of stuff. >> >>>> Also, I noticed that in the code below we connect to the registry at >>>> one URL but the base URL for the Atom stuff has "/atom" added to the >>>> reg URL passed in. Is that right? Should we not say the base URL is >>>> .../wso2registry/atom instead? >>> We can do that . But I intentionally implement the code to give the URL >>> of the registry not the URL of the ATOM. Because user does not want to >>> know whether we use APP or not , he just need a remote API to talk to a >>> registry. So I personally do not like to provide /atom when we give >>> the >>> url. >> >> +1 to not providing /atom when we give the URL. But -1 to tacking it >> on in the first place. There is no need for the registry API to make >> any assumptions about the URL except that it's rooted wherever we're >> told. In other words - shouldn't I be able to say: >> >> Registry R1 = new RemoteRegistry("http://myhost/regRoot";); >> Registry R2 = new RemoteRegistry("http://myhost/regRoot/subDir";); >> >> ...and have both R1 and R2 work? Isn't this how we're expecting to >> use this for things like Synapse/Axis2 repositories? >> >> new RemoteRegistry("http://registrySite/registry/finance/axis2repo";); >> >> Thoughts? >> >> --Glen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Registry-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev >> > _______________________________________________ Registry-dev mailing list [email protected] http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev
