8:39 p.m.
So the old thread was getting a bit long windy.
Here are the current issues that are being discussed on nested endpoints
(and things which we need to discuss before we move ahead on putting
them in the Pipe spec)
1. Saving and removing look really weird.
pipe.remove(2,'/child/3', callback)
vs
pipe.remove(2, callback)
The first removes an element in the child collection with an id 3 of
parent with id 2. The second removes the parent with id 2. This really
isn't THAT weird but it is a bit ugly.
pipe.save(new Parent(), callback)
vs
pipe.save(new Child(), '2/child', callback)
The first saves a new parent object but the second saves a new child
under the parent with an id of 2.
2. The type of Pipe breaks with nested resources as they are.
In Android Pipe is parameterized with a type which correlates to the
resource it represents. This type is serialized into an instance of the
resource and the serialization mechanism does not change. For example
Pipe<Parent> pipe = new RestAdapter<Parent>(URL, Parent.class);
pipe.read(callback);
Passes a instance of List<Parent> to the callback. With nested
resources
pipe.read('/child/2', callback);
SHOULD pass a List<Child> to the callback. There are two ways to do
this and both feel quite hackey.
1) Use reflection to find the type of child and then use that class.
The obvious problem with this is that a service may not return
all of the children attached to a Parent if you ask for just the Parent
(or all of the Parents) but the Parent class on Android would have to
include it.
2) Pass a type to the read operation.
This is LESS hackey and possibly OK, except that we will have
to add more configuration to the GSONdeserialization. The side effect
of this means now we have to include serialization information about
child types in the configuration of the Parent Pipe. At this point the
user might as well just make a Child Pipe.
The same comments apply for save.
Thoughts?
Summers
9:40 p.m.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So the old thread was getting a bit long windy.
Here are the current issues that are being discussed on nested endpoints
(and things which we need to discuss before we move ahead on putting
them in the Pipe spec)
1. Saving and removing look really weird.
pipe.remove(2,'/child/3', callback)
vs
pipe.remove(2, callback)
The first removes an element in the child collection with an id 3 of
parent with id 2. The second removes the parent with id 2. This really
isn't THAT weird but it is a bit ugly.
Yeah, ugly and (a bit) weird (perhaps because it's ugly I think it's weird
:))
pipe.save(new Parent(), callback)
vs
pipe.save(new Child(), '2/child', callback)
The first saves a new parent object but the second saves a new child
under the parent with an id of 2.
2. The type of Pipe breaks with nested resources as they are.
In Android Pipe is parameterized with a type which correlates to the
resource it represents. This type is serialized into an instance of the
resource and the serialization mechanism does not change. For example
Pipe<Parent> pipe = new RestAdapter<Parent>(URL, Parent.class);
pipe.read(callback);
Passes a instance of List<Parent> to the callback. With nested
resources
pipe.read('/child/2', callback);
SHOULD pass a List<Child> to the callback. There are two ways to do
this and both feel quite hackey.
1) Use reflection to find the type of child and then use that class.
The obvious problem with this is that a service may not return
all of the children attached to a Parent if you ask for just the Parent
(or all of the Parents) but the Parent class on Android would have to
include it.
2) Pass a type to the read operation.
This is LESS hackey and possibly OK, except that we will have
to add more configuration to the GSONdeserialization. The side effect
of this means now we have to include serialization information about
child types in the configuration of the Parent Pipe. At this point the
user might as well just make a Child Pipe.
Ha!
Good point!
The same comments apply for save.
Thoughts?
Not sure, but ... do we really need "nested endpoint" support on a pipe?
What do we gain, if it works? Is it worth it (already talking about this,
since quite a while :-) )?
"Nested Resources" work already today, but it's perhaps (I am not really
sure) a bit ugly (odd):
https://gist.github.com/matzew/6ab432e437b9a017a21d
-Matthias
Summers
_______________________________________________
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
8:21 p.m.
The nested endpoint/pipe idea is dead. It worked well for reading nested endpoints but
save and delete on nested endpoints got too messy and can be accomplished with pipes the
way they exist today.
On May 1, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So the old thread was getting a bit long windy.
Here are the current issues that are being discussed on nested endpoints
(and things which we need to discuss before we move ahead on putting
them in the Pipe spec)
1. Saving and removing look really weird.
pipe.remove(2,'/child/3', callback)
vs
pipe.remove(2, callback)
The first removes an element in the child collection with an id 3 of
parent with id 2. The second removes the parent with id 2. This really
isn't THAT weird but it is a bit ugly.
Yeah, ugly and (a bit) weird (perhaps because it's ugly I think it's weird :))
pipe.save(new Parent(), callback)
vs
pipe.save(new Child(), '2/child', callback)
The first saves a new parent object but the second saves a new child
under the parent with an id of 2.
2. The type of Pipe breaks with nested resources as they are.
In Android Pipe is parameterized with a type which correlates to the
resource it represents. This type is serialized into an instance of the
resource and the serialization mechanism does not change. For example
Pipe<Parent> pipe = new RestAdapter<Parent>(URL, Parent.class);
pipe.read(callback);
Passes a instance of List<Parent> to the callback. With nested
resources
pipe.read('/child/2', callback);
SHOULD pass a List<Child> to the callback. There are two ways to do
this and both feel quite hackey.
1) Use reflection to find the type of child and then use that class.
The obvious problem with this is that a service may not return
all of the children attached to a Parent if you ask for just the Parent
(or all of the Parents) but the Parent class on Android would have to
include it.
2) Pass a type to the read operation.
This is LESS hackey and possibly OK, except that we will have
to add more configuration to the GSONdeserialization. The side effect
of this means now we have to include serialization information about
child types in the configuration of the Parent Pipe. At this point the
user might as well just make a Child Pipe.
Ha!
Good point!
The same comments apply for save.
Thoughts?
Not sure, but ... do we really need "nested endpoint" support on a pipe? What
do we gain, if it works? Is it worth it (already talking about this, since quite a while
:-) )?
"Nested Resources" work already today, but it's perhaps (I am not really
sure) a bit ugly (odd):
https://gist.github.com/matzew/6ab432e437b9a017a21d
-Matthias
Summers
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
4000
days inactive
4020
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Douglas Campos -
Kris Borchers -
Matthias Wessendorf -
Summers Pittman