>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, or would you like default parameter values but in a different form?

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).


/Dan


On 3 January 2013 11:35, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:


On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius@gmail.com> wrote:
We've pushed a version of AeroGear Controller with support for request parameters (AEROGEAR-671) to openshift.

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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev