It sounds good!

+1

BR,

Juanjo.

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> While trying to implement SLING-422 [1] it occurred to me, that the
> SlingPostServlet is anything but REST-ful. For example, it is possible
> to have a request for resource /a which at the same might cause a
> resoure /x/y to be moved to /e/f and much nastier things. Providing an
> accurate response to such operations and acting upon such responses is
> almost impossible if not introducing multi-status ...
>
> Therefore, I propose to simplify the SlingPostServlet as follows:
>
> * The servlet is modified to execute a single operation per request,
> where an operation may be create/modify, delete, move and copy. The
> actual operation to execute is indicated by a new parameter ":operation"
> which can take the following values:
>
>    <unset> or empty string - create/modify request
>    "delete" - delete current resource
>    "move" - move current resource
>    "copy" - copy current resource"
>
> * All operations act on the current resource - request.getResource().
> The delete, move and copy operations fail if the current resource is a
> non-existing resource.
>
> * The distinction between create and just modify depends on the
> resource: If the current resource does not exist yet it is created.
> Special treatment for resource creation happens if the path is
> terminated by a slash (as proposed by Carsten and Roy in earlier
> messages) or by a slash-star (/*, like currently). Maybe we should
> deprecate the /* behaviour and just support the trailing slash behaviour
> for consistency with the general perception. The name of the newly
> created node is defined as it is today: using special
> parameters :name, :nameHint and well-known content such as title.
>
> * Some operations (create, move, copy) handle a parameter ":order",
> which defines the ordering relation of the newly created item (this is
> the same behaviour as in the current implementation)
>
> * The copy and move operation by default fail if an item already exists
> at the destination. This behaviour may be overwritten by setting the
> ":replace" paramter to "true". This replaces the current "replace" value
> for the :copyFlags and :moveFlags parameter.
>
> * The copy and move operations require another parameter ":dest", which
> is the destination path name of the resource. The operation fails if the
> parameter is missing.
>
> * The ":redirect" parameter causes the client to be redirected to the
> desired target in case the operation was successfull. This is the same
> behaviour as today.
>
> * The ":status" parameter causes the HTTP status code to be
> non-standards-compliant: If the parameter value is "browser", that
> status code is always 200/OK, even in case of failure. Otherwise the
> status code will reflect the actual status.
>
> * Regardless of the ":status" parameter value, the response is always
> the complete run-down of the operation executed with the actual status
> code and eventual exceptions - unless of course if the client has been
> redirected after successfull operation and instructed to so by
> the :redirect parameter. This is the same behaviour as today.
>
> * Run-Down of some status codes expected:
>
>     200/OK - if :status==browser or if the operation succeeded
>     201/CREATED - required by a successful move or copy, when the
> destination
>              did not exist yet. Also sent when the current resource was
> created
>     404/NOT FOUND - if the current resource is missing for copy, move,
> delete
>     412/PRECONDITION FAILED - if the destination for the copy or move
>              operation exists and the :replace parameter is not set to
> true
>              (this is consistent with the WebDAV spec for COPY/MOVE in
> this
>              situation).
>     302/FOUND - aka temporary redirect, if the operation succeeded and
> the
>              :redirect parameter is set
>     500/INTERNAL SERVER ERROR - in case of any processing error,
>              e.g. an exception being thrown
>
>
> In case of general consensus on this matter, I would modify SLING-422
> such, that it actually encompasses this change instead of just
> requesting support for real status codes.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-422
>
>

Reply via email to