Hello,
It is a good remark! I noticed it when worked on REST api doc generation
[1].
In my REST services I always use JSON or empty body and it looks like a
pure api. text/plain is not compatible with it. Think, that it will be
better to fix it in later releases.
[1]
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/526
Best regards,
Idel Pivnitskiy
--
E-mail: Idel.Pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com
Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <
https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy>
GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <
https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy>
2015-04-29 18:50 GMT+03:00 Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com>:
Hey guys,
one issues Tadeas identified during testing sender endpoint via Java
Sender lib is connected to this quiet change in the REST response from REST
Sender endpoint (we added text/plain response specification):
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/jaxrs...
As we were always responding with "Job submitted", admin-ui client started
to complain about the response not being JSON. So obvious fix was change
that to text/plain, right?
Not really.. some clients like Java Sender lib already expects
application/json and JAX-RS then refuses these requests:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-java-client/blob/master/...
The question is, what should be the correct response?
There are many options, I would be perfectly fine with 204 No Content
reply,
but JSON might be more appropriate for future extensions, we may want to
return e.g. PushMessageInformation#id or something else as part of the
response.
So, wouldn't be application/json more appropriate than text/plain? We may
send empty body now {}.
Is this something we want to address for Alpha? Or should we release fixed
Java Sender lib?
Cheers,
~ Lukas
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev