On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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,
201/accept is the way to go - since the server accepts a job, for further
processing.
HOWEVER, I am fine w/ skipping the content "jib submitted" on the beta.1
release
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?
if needed, we need an update of the sender lib - I think due to the new
format for sending pushes, we anyways need a 1.1.0-alpha.n release of that
lib. Perhaps we can have one after the server is out, Sebi?
Cheers,
~ Lukas
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)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