[aerogear-dev] Client side Paging Spec

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>> My suggestion is to name these two parameters something more generic like locator/count where locator=page/offset and count=limit/perPage. Then in our configs we would provide these options:
>>
>> pagingType {String} - determines the paging method to be used in calculating next page, etc. and could be either "offset" or "page", default "offset"
>> locatorParam {String} - locator parameter name, default "offset"
>> locatorValue {Number} - page index or offset
>> locatorIdentifier {String} - the locator identifier name, default "AG-Paging-Offset"
>> countParam {String} - count parameter name, default "limit"
>> countValue {Number} - items per page
>> countIdentifier {String} - the count identifier name, default "AG-Paging-Limit"
>>
>> Thoughts?


OK.... I agree that you raised a valid concern, regarding that the
client needs to indicate whether paging information is sent as
headers, as query parameters, or as body data.


But I still am not so sure if the above args are all really needed, a
ton of cfg params make it a bit fishy.
How about, using the following as a default "parameter provider"
- offset (which sets the offset of the first element that should be
included in the returned collection)
- limit (the number of results that should be listed on a page)

OK.

Now if a user wants/needs to provide a different parameter schema
(imagine his/her lame server requires/supports "page", "perPage" and
"sorting"):
The developer could just create a custom impl (iOS: block, Java:
anonymus class impl of an interface, JS: callback function) and pass
it to the "paging request".

that way the dev. could even add a ton of more params (if the lame
backend requires that).

since the pipe (or the paging request) knows whether the paging
information is sent as headers, as query parameters, or as body data,
it would just "serialize" the give "param provider" into the actual
location.

Any thoughts?

-M






>
>
> Any news on this ?
>
> -Matthias
>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/17/2013 11:37 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> based on today's IRC and mailing list discussions, I have polished the
>>>> client side paging spec:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/client_paging_spec/docs/specs/abstract_aerogear-client-paging.markdown
>>>>
>>>> Please review the document!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>> +1, let's see how it works in actual implementation!
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf