I have updated the documentation under
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/7.4+RSS (and deleted the
earlier created temp page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/Mapping+RSS+into+Syndication+Object+Model).
Please feel free to edit/delete these changes.

Since this work is now complete, I have closed
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-149 as well.

Thanks,
Shiva Kumar H R

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[email protected]> wrote:

> :-) Many many thanks Jesse. (I thought the minor modification that I made
> to WINK-149-new-part4.patch might go unnoticed, but you have been generous
> enough to commit that as well :-) )
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shiva Kumar H R
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Jesse A Ramos <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I applied patches 1, 3, and 4 and removed the provider that was previously
>> checked in.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> Shiva Kumar H R <[email protected]>
>> To:
>> [email protected]
>> Date:
>> 04/20/2010 10:03 AM
>> Subject:
>> Re: Map RSS to Syndication Object Model
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Jesse for the committing the code.
>>
>> I am not very sure about the side impact when users add the new provider
>> in
>> their Application sub-class. Hence my +1 to remove this new provider.
>>
>> And please commit the java-doc comments as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shiva Kumar H R
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Jesse A Ramos <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > The way that I was thinking that a user would use it would be to add it
>> > directly in their Application sub-class if they so choose, not by
>> > modifying the wink-providers file. They would only do this if they knew
>> > they were working with RSS (and not plain JAXB or Atom) and wanted to
>> > simplify the conversion.  If you still don't think this is an okay
>> > approach then I'm fine removing the provider.  I already checked in your
>> > previous patches (minus the wink-providers change).  If we want to
>> remove
>> > the provider I can do so when I upload your latest patches that include
>> > the javadoc.
>> >
>> > - Jesse Ramos
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From:
>> > Shiva Kumar H R <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > [email protected]
>> > Date:
>> > 04/20/2010 01:04 AM
>> > Subject:
>> > Re: Map RSS to Syndication Object Model
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks again Jesse for looking into this.
>> >
>> > WINK-149-new-part2.patch has the modification to
>> > wink-common/src/main/resources/META-INF/core/wink-providers towards the
>> > end
>> > of the patch file. But as you suggest, this modification to
>> wink-providers
>> > file should definitely be removed.
>> >
>> > Regarding committing the provider without updating the wink-providers
>> > file,
>> > I am concerned about the way users might add it to the list of
>> providers.
>> > In
>> > WINK-149-new-part2.patch, if you observe the modification I have made to
>> > wink-providers file, you will see that this new provider comes before
>> JAXB
>> > &
>> > Atom providers, thereby giving more preference to JAXB & Atom providers
>> > than
>> > this new provider. (I realized this by reading the comments at the top
>> of
>> > wink-providers file, where it says "#   3. Order of the providers. The
>> > later
>> > provider was added, the higher priority it has." ). If by mistake, users
>> > add
>> > it in such a way that this new provider has higher priority than Atom
>> > provider, then I see that many of the unit tests fail! hinting the mess
>> up
>> > that this new provider has caused. (And I am sorry, I should have
>> > mentioned
>> > about this before itself.)
>> >
>> > So I strongly feel that we drop the idea of adding this new provider and
>> > request the users to explicitly handle the mapping. Hence I request that
>> > only the following patches be committed:
>> >  * WINK-149-new-part1.patch
>> >  * WINK-149-new-part3.patch
>> >  * WINK-149-new-part4.patch
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Shiva Kumar H R
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Jesse A Ramos <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Shiva,
>> > >
>> > > How about we go ahead and commit all your patches, making the provider
>> > > optional?  I didn't see in any of your patches
>> > > wink-common/src/main/resources/META-INF/core/wink-providers being
>> > modified
>> > > (let me know if I missed it) which would have made the provider a
>> system
>> > > provider.  If we commit the provider but don't update the
>> wink-providers
>> > > file, we avoid introducing the issue you raise by default but still
>> make
>> > > the provider available to someone who may want to use it.
>> > >
>> > > -- Jesse
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From:
>> > > Shiva Kumar H R <[email protected]>
>> > > To:
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > Date:
>> > > 04/14/2010 09:55 AM
>> > > Subject:
>> > > Re: Map RSS to Syndication Object Model
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I again need some help here. I have added 4 patches for WINK-149 (
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-149) :
>> > >
>> > > 1. WINK-149-new-part1.patch : adds the mapping from RSS to Syndication
>> > > Object Model and vice-versa.
>> > > 2. WINK-149-new-part2.patch : adds a new JAX-RS provider (which is
>> where
>> > I
>> > > see a problem as explained below).
>> > > 3. WINK-149-new-part3.patch : adds a Junit testcase to test RSS to
>> > > SyndFeed
>> > > mapping and vice versa.
>> > > 4. WINK-149-new-part4.patch : adds a new client example in
>> > > \wink-examples\client\ReadRSS-client that demonstrates the RSS mapping
>> > > into
>> > > Syndication Object Model.
>> > >
>> > > In WINK-149-new-part2.patch, I have added a new JAX-RS Provider which
>> > > takes
>> > > an incoming text/xml or application/xml and converts it into SyndFeed.
>> I
>> > > am
>> > > wondering if we really need this. The problem that I see is: RSS
>> doesn't
>> > > have a special content-type header the way ATOM has
>> > > (application/atom+xml).
>> > > So all RSS docs will be served under the general content-type of
>> > > application/xml or text/xml. And sometimes even Atom docs could be
>> > served
>> > > under this same content type.
>> > >
>> > > So can't we request our Wink users to explicitly map the RssFeed into
>> > > SyndFeed, the way I have done in WINK-149-new-part4.patch which is as
>> > > below:
>> > >
>> > >            // perform a GET on the resource. The resource will be
>> > > returned
>> > > as an Rss object
>> > >            RssFeed rssFeed =
>> > > feedResource.accept(MediaType.APPLICATION_XML).get(RssFeed.class);
>> > >
>> > >            // Map RSS into SyndFeed
>> > >            SyndFeed syndFeed = new SyndFeed();
>> > >            syndFeed = rssFeed.toSynd(syndFeed);
>> > >
>> > >            // Now access RSS using SyndFeed APIs
>> > >
>> > > The only advantage that I see when the new JAX-RS provider in
>> > > WINK-149-new-part2.patch is committed, is that the client code will
>> look
>> > > as
>> > > below:
>> > >            // perform a GET on the resource. The resource will be
>> > > returned
>> > > as an SyndFeed object
>> > >            SyndFeed syndFeed =
>> > > feedResource.accept(MediaType.APPLICATION_XML).get(SyndFeed.class);
>> > >            // Now access RSS using SyndFeed APIs
>> > >
>> > > Please suggest which approach we should follow (i.e. whether we must
>> > > commit
>> > > WINK-149-new-part2.patch or not).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Shiva Kumar H R
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Shiva Kumar H R <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I have uploaded new patches onto WINK-149 (
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-149) based on the
>> initial
>> > > code
>> > > > developed by Jesse.
>> > > >
>> > > > The mapping is documented in
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/Mapping+RSS+into+Syndication+Object+Model(the<http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/Mapping+RSS+into+Syndication+Object+Model%28the>
>> <
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/Mapping+RSS+into+Syndication+Object+Model%28the
>> >
>> > <
>> >
>> >
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/Mapping+RSS+into+Syndication+Object+Model%28the
>>
>> > >
>> > > wiki seems to be down now).
>> > > >
>> > > > Please commit the new patches.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Shiva Kumar H R
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Shiva Kumar H R
>> > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi Jesse,
>> > > >> I have created the following (temporary) wiki page for capturing
>> this
>> > > >> mapping:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/Mapping+RSS+into+Syndication+Object+Model
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And I am sorry, I haven't yet looked into the code. Will do that
>> > soon.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> Shiva Kumar H R
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Jesse A Ramos <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> I've uploaded a patch with my changes to JIRA WINK-149 (
>> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-149).
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I wanted to give folks an opportunity to review this before I
>> > > committed
>> > > >>> as
>> > > >>> I wasn't sure if I did the mappings 100% correctly. In addition to
>> > the
>> > > >>> question below, there were a few other areas that I wasn't sure
>> > about.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Here is how I mapped things from the syndication Object model to
>> the
>> > > RSS
>> > > >>> model:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> SyndFeed --> RssFeed/RssChannel (Mapping a SyndFeed to an RssFeed
>> > > results
>> > > >>> in an RssFeed with version 2.0. The attribute mapping is done in
>> > > >>> RssChannel)
>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>> SyndFeed.base --> RssChannel.link
>> > > >>> SyndFeed.generator --> RssChannel.generator
>> > > >>> SyndFeed.icon --> RssChannel.image
>> > > >>> SyndFeed.lang --> RssChannel.language
>> > > >>> SyndFeed.rights --> RssChannel.copyright
>> > > >>> SyndFeed.title --> RssChannel.title
>> > > >>> SyndFeed.entries/SyndFeed.links --> RssChannel.items
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> SyndEntry --> RssItem
>> > > >>> ---------------------------------
>> > > >>> SyndEntry.authors (first item) --> RssItem.author
>> > > >>> SyndEntry.base --> RssItem.link
>> > > >>> SyndEntry.published --> RssItem.pubDate
>> > > >>> SyndEntry.title --> RssItem.title
>> > > >>> SyndEntry.summary --> RssItem.description
>> > > >>> SyndEntry.id --> RssItem.guid
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> SyndLink --> RssItem
>> > > >>> --------------------------------
>> > > >>> SyndLink.title --> RssItem.title
>> > > >>> SyndLink.base --> RssItem.link
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> SyndCategory --> RssCategory
>> > > >>> -----------------------------------------------
>> > > >>> SyndCategory.term --> RssCategory.domain
>> > > >>> SyndCategory.label --> RssCategory.content
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Anything not listed here was not mapped. Any feedback/corrections
>> > are
>> > > >>> greatly appreciated.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> From:
>> > > >>> Jesse A Ramos/Austin/i...@ibmus
>> > > >>> To:
>> > > >>> [email protected]
>> > > >>> Date:
>> > > >>> 03/22/2010 11:08 AM
>> > > >>> Subject:
>> > > >>> Re: Map RSS to Syndication Object Model
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I went ahead and starting working on this.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I have a question regarding the mapping of links in a SyndFeed.
>> > Would
>> > > >>> these map to RssItems?  Currently I'm mapping SyndEnty's to
>> RssItems
>> > > but
>> > > >>> wasn't sure if I should do the same for links.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Thanks for the clarification.  I'll post what I've mapped on the
>> > > >>> syndication side to the RSS side as there are other items I'm not
>> > 100%
>> > > >>> sure about when I'm done just to make sure that it's correct.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> -- Jesse
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> From:
>> > > >>> Shiva Kumar H R <[email protected]>
>> > > >>> To:
>> > > >>> [email protected]
>> > > >>> Date:
>> > > >>> 03/18/2010 08:18 PM
>> > > >>> Subject:
>> > > >>> Re: Map RSS to Syndication Object Model
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Many thanks Jesse. I will look further into this.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > >>> Shiva Kumar H R
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Jesse A Ramos <[email protected]
>> >
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> > Hi Shiva,
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > I took a look at this yesterday to see if I could figure out
>> what
>> > > >>> needed
>> > > >>> > to be done.  This is what I found.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > In org.apache.wink.common.model.atom the ATOM Object model
>> classes
>> > > have
>> > > >>> > constructors that accept the Objects from
>> > > >>> > org.apache.wink.common.model.synd (ex: the constructor
>> > > >>> AtomFeed(SyndFeed))
>> > > >>> > which allow the syndication Objects to be converted to ATOM
>> > Objects.
>> > > >>> > Similarly, there are adapter classes under
>> > > >>> > org.apache.wink.server.internal.entity.html that allow a
>> > conversion
>> > > to
>> > > >>> > html.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > Additionally, there are provides (AtomFeedSyndFeedProvider,
>> > > >>> > AtomEntrySyndEntryProvider, HtmlSyndFeedProvider, and
>> > > >>> > HtmlSyndEntryProvider) which allow syndication Objects to be
>> > > serialized
>> > > >>> to
>> > > >>> > those other formats and which make use of the adapters.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > I believe that the JIRA was created to add similar support to
>> the
>> > > RSS
>> > > >>> > Object model.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > -- Jesse
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > >I need some help in resolving JIRA
>> > > >>> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-149 "Map RSS to
>> > > >>> Syndication
>> > > >>> > >Object Model". I had opened this JIRA after a suggestion on dev
>> > > list.
>> > > >>> > >However I must acknowledge that I never understood the
>> > > need/importance
>> > > >>> of
>> > > >>> > >this.
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > >Can someone help me by throwing some light on this? What is
>> > > expected
>> > > >>> and
>> > > >>> > how
>> > > >>> > >would that be useful?
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > >Thanks,
>> > > >>> > >Shiva Kumar H R
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to