[aerogear-dev] [aerogear-controller] Request Parameter support

[Daniel Bevenius]

>Yeah, not exactly sure about the "location".
Ah, I think this is a good point. When writing this it makes sense as I
expect most people have code completion and you can understand that this is
a default value that is expected. But reading them afterwards it is not
obvious which is a bad thing.

>Let's go with the current version. I was just not sure, when I took an
initial look :)
Lets see what the others think and perhaps change this if needed, or like
you said, go with this for now and revisit.

Thanks!



On 3 January 2013 13:07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Daniel Bevenius <
> daniel.bevenius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Hrm, not sure if I like having the default values for the parameters
>> inside of the routing definition.
>> Would you prefer not having support for default parameters values,
>>
>
> Nope, I am OK with default values
>
>
>
>> or would you like default parameter values but in a different form?
>>
>
> Yeah, not exactly sure about the "location".
>
> I am fine with the current approach, but thought it may not be the best to
> define them in the routing section.
> But on the other hand, that's a very simple (and centralistic) solution
> right now, so I am 99% OK with it :-)
>
>
>>
>> In the example above we are passing query parameters and might not make
>> sense to have default values in this case, but these parameters could also
>> be header, form, or cookie parameters.
>>
> Not sure if this makes a different but I'm thinking that there might be
>> situations where one might consider a header parameter or a cookie
>> parameter as optional and would like a default value for it. Without
>> defaults, we would need to have overloaded target methods as the current
>> implementation needs an exact match for arguments -> parameters (but I'm
>> sure we could look into different solutions).
>>
>
> Let's go with the current version. I was just not sure, when I took an
> initial look :)
>
>
>>
>>
>> /Dan
>>
>>
>> On 3 January 2013 11:35, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
>>> daniel.bevenius at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We've pushed a version of AeroGear Controller with support for request
>>>> parameters (AEROGEAR-671 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-671>
>>>> ) to openshift<http://controllerdemo-danbev.rhcloud.com/aerogear-controller-demo/>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> This demo has the following new route added to it:
>>>>
>>>> route()
>>>>       .from("/cars")
>>>>       .on(RequestMethod.GET)
>>>>       .produces(MediaType.JSON.toString(), "application/custom")
>>>>       .to(Home.class).get(param("color", "pink"), param("brand", "mini"));
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hrm, not sure if I like having the default values for the parameters
>>> inside of the routing definition.
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130103/f59f08cc/attachment-0001.html