Details

    • Type: Sub-task Sub-task
    • Status: Resolved Resolved (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Out of Date Out of Date
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 1.future
    • Component/s: as-*, examples
    • Security Level: Public (Everyone can see)
    • Labels:
      None
    • Similar Issues:
      Show 10 results 

      Description

      The service must be updated to support the additional entities and full crud. They should maintain bean validation setup, and use correct return codes for errors.

        Activity

        Hide
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment -

        Started work in https://github.com/mbogoevici/as-quickstarts/tree/upgrade-entities

        Some notes:

        • Changing URL scheme from / {entity}/{id}/json to /{entity}

          /json/

          {id}

          (to allow for /

          {entity}

          /json scheme prefixing)

        • Adding Country CRUD services

        Open points:

        Are some of the existing resources still needed (e.g. GET or form-based entity create) or shall we just focus on JSON/XML (which is what the actual example is using)?

        Show
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment - Started work in https://github.com/mbogoevici/as-quickstarts/tree/upgrade-entities Some notes: Changing URL scheme from / {entity}/{id}/json to /{entity} /json/ {id} (to allow for / {entity} /json scheme prefixing) Adding Country CRUD services Open points: Are some of the existing resources still needed (e.g. GET or form-based entity create) or shall we just focus on JSON/XML (which is what the actual example is using)?
        Hide
        Jay Balunas
        added a comment -

        The reason for the GET to create a member was for JSONP support. It is not an ideal way to do this, but the only way that JSONP supports.

        It is not needed, but is also not that hard to support is it?

        Show
        Jay Balunas
        added a comment - The reason for the GET to create a member was for JSONP support. It is not an ideal way to do this, but the only way that JSONP supports. It is not needed, but is also not that hard to support is it?
        Hide
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment -

        I don't think it's an issue per se, I was just wondering what should/shouldn't stay.

        Form-based entity create - any strong feelings for/against? i.e. I can see the value of showing the various ways in which the interaction can take place, I'm just wondering how it fits into the narrative (and this is a different class from JSONP).

        Show
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment - I don't think it's an issue per se, I was just wondering what should/shouldn't stay. Form-based entity create - any strong feelings for/against? i.e. I can see the value of showing the various ways in which the interaction can take place, I'm just wondering how it fits into the narrative (and this is a different class from JSONP).
        Hide
        Jay Balunas
        added a comment -

        I'd rather not have a back and forth in jira. Lets move this to forums or IRC.

        Show
        Jay Balunas
        added a comment - I'd rather not have a back and forth in jira. Lets move this to forums or IRC.
        Hide
        Kris Borchers
        added a comment -

        Is there any way we can get rid of the XML stuff. We don't use it except to show that it's available do we? It's terrible to work with client side as well so everything is done with JSON now. Just a thought.

        Show
        Kris Borchers
        added a comment - Is there any way we can get rid of the XML stuff. We don't use it except to show that it's available do we? It's terrible to work with client side as well so everything is done with JSON now. Just a thought.
        Hide
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment -

        I think we need to move this to the forum. I'll post a more comprehensive service layout this afternoon.

        Show
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment - I think we need to move this to the forum. I'll post a more comprehensive service layout this afternoon.
        Hide
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment -

        I also think that we should address stuff like XML (if we do) through content negotiation, not separate URLs (but, see above).

        Show
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment - I also think that we should address stuff like XML (if we do) through content negotiation, not separate URLs (but, see above).
        Hide
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment -

        Let's continue the discussion here: https://community.jboss.org/thread/196921

        Show
        Marius Bogoevici
        added a comment - Let's continue the discussion here: https://community.jboss.org/thread/196921
        Hide
        Bruno Oliveira
        added a comment -

        I think this discussion is out of date. Feel free to reopen it if you disagree

        Show
        Bruno Oliveira
        added a comment - I think this discussion is out of date. Feel free to reopen it if you disagree

          People

          • Assignee:
            Marius Bogoevici
            Reporter:
            Jay Balunas
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: