Re: [errai-dev] Client interceptors - jax-rs
I think I'm a fan of option #2. To be clear, would it look like this
(for example)?
@Templated
@Page(path="dashboard", role=DefaultPage.class)
@Dependent
public class DashboardPage extends AbstractPage {
@Inject
@Interceptors({ AuthInterceptor.class, ReqHeaderInterceptor.class })
private Caller<IMyRestService> caller;
}
That seems pretty slick to me. It does mean that if I inject that
Caller in multiple places I need to specify the interceptor list each
time. But that actually sounds pretty powerful to me.
Would the interceptors be managed beans (i.e. injected into the Caller)?
My use case would be that I'd have an AuthenticationInterceptor for my
Caller, but I would want to @Inject a configuration bean of some kind
into it, because I might be using either BASIC auth *or* Bearer Token
auth, and the managed configuration bean is what knows which it is.
-Eric
PS: adding the errai-dev list to the conversation, which is what I
should have done originally
On 2/7/2014 11:35 AM, Christian Sadilek wrote:
Yeah, I had thought about that as well before but couldn't decide
what's best:
- Add a mapping to ErraiApp.properties
- Add an annotation/qualifier @Interceptors(...) that can be used when injecting a
Caller<?>
- Add a parameter to call() that takes a List of interceptors
Definitely a good feature to have. Wdyt?
Cheers,
Christian
On 2014-02-07, at 10:06 AM, Eric Wittmann <eric.wittmann(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I was reading the documentation re: client interceptors for jax-rs in Errai and I was
wondering what you thought about adding a mechanism to allow client interceptors to be
defined either globally or in some way that doesn't require modifying the JAX-RS
interface (to add annotations). I'm thinking that in some cases a developer might be
creating a UI and invoking REST services where they have access to the jax-rs interfaces
but do not have write privs. In other words they can consume them but not modify them.
In that case it might be nice to able to apply interceptors in some other way.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Eric