the gist says header ( AG-BLAH...)<div><br></div><div>so, if it's param name...., a setter for the theader name is missing ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>-Matthias<span></span><br><br>On Wednesday, January 16, 2013, Kris Borchers wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
On Jan 16, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'matzew@apache.org')">matzew@apache.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Kris,<br>
><br>
> our server uses these param names, as default, for the actual query<br>
> string, on the URL<br>
> *limit<br>
> *offset<br>
> *where<br>
><br>
> looking at your gist (<a href="https://gist.github.com/4531575" target="_blank">https://gist.github.com/4531575</a>), I don't see a<br>
> config to override the actual value of the above param names (e.g. to<br>
> use page, perPage etc).<br>
><br>
> The ''offset" argument is more to define the actual header information<br>
> (the name, where to look on the response), right ?<br>
<br>
Yes, exactly. The "offset" arg is where you could rename it as "page" and the "offsetVal" is where you give it a default value.<br>
<br>
><br>
> -M<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Kris Borchers <<a>kris@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <<a>matzew@apache.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Follow-up question,<br>
>><br>
>> in the previous gist, we have:<br>
>><br>
>> var pagedPipe = AeroGear.Pipeline({<br>
>> name: "cars",<br>
>> settings: {<br>
>> paged: "headers"<br>
>> }<br>
>> }).pipes.cars;<br>
>><br>
>> so.. here you would basically "bloat" the settings with values like: "next", "first", "paged", "limit", "offset" etc - right ?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Actually, no. I'm thinking there would be a config in settings in addition to the paged setting. I want to keep that out of the config so it's easier to set that to false without the need to redo the whole config. The page config will actually have a number of items to keep the impl flexible. So there will be both a setting for what the "next" header or content metadata var is called and same for the others.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I am currently thinking if we should do (at least on the iOS side of things) the same... that would mean... there is no longer an AGFilterConfig thing.....<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -Matthias<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <<a>matzew@apache.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> on the IRC I asked this:<br>
>>><br>
>>> MW: <a href="https://gist.github.com/4539188" target="_blank">https://gist.github.com/4539188</a> - when creating a pipe, with the 'paged' settings - I could apply the offset/limit there too, or "just" via updatePageConfig() invocation ?<br>
>>><br>
>>> KB: the point of that gist was to sort out the differences in read() between the libs so i left it out.<br>
>>><br>
>>> MW: thanks<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -M<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <<a>matzew@apache.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Kris Borchers <<a>kris@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Bruno Oliveira <<a>bruno@abstractj.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If the data doesn't exist HTTP 204 is a good fit. Just don't understand why we need to interrupt the app workflow, because the data doesn't exist.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I would prefer that an exception is thrown client side before a request is ever sent to the server. That way we save the http request which is important on mobile.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Ah! yeah - good point -> since the "paging API" knows there is no "next" (for instance)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> That being said, then the issue becomes what if that page does exist but we don't allow the request because the data was updated since our last read? Then we wouldn't know without another read happening.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> yeah - here could the 2.x targeted feature of 'sync' come in...<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Hmmm, interested in other opinions since relying on a 204 or any status from the server couples the client to the server impl but if we don't allow the request, that could also cause issues.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> true :)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato<br>
>>>>> -<br>
>>>>> @abstractj<br>
>>>>> -<br>
>>>>> Volenti Nihil Difficile<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Sent from Gmail Mobile<br>