In the xml file you need to create the bean, then reference it in the server element near the top. Other than that...no, that should be all. I assume you set the Path attribute on the resource.
I thought we were going to do pages/<id>/regions/<id>/regionwidgets/<id> since it makes no sense to manage a region widget outside a region outside a page? On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm trying to register a new endpoint for regionWidgets. I've added > the interface and default implementation, and created / registered the > bean in cxf-applicationContext.xml. > > However, when I hit the endpoint I get an error: > [INFO] [talledLocalContainer] WARN : > org.apache.cxf.jaxrs.utils.JAXRSUtils - No operation matching request > path "/portal/api/rest/regionWidgets/1" is found, Relative Path: /1, > HTTP Method: GET, ContentType: */*, Accept: > text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8,. > Please enable FINE/TRACE log level for more details. > > Is there anything else I need to do in order to create and register a > new endpoint? > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < > [email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Matt Franklin < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Erin Noe-Payne > >>> >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > Any further discussion here? I would like to start implementing > more > >>> >> > of the REST APIs, as it is foundational for the entire angular > >>> >> > architecture. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > My understanding from Matt is that the current apis in trunk are > >>> >> > mostly proof of concept - they are not tested and much of the > >>> >> > functionality is just stubbed. Are any of the rest api > implementations > >>> >> > in the code base a good working example? Is there other > documentation > >>> >> > we can reference? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> I've been working on the People resource as a "reference" of how I'd > >>> like > >>> >> to see them done but it's still a work in progress. I need to go > back > >>> and > >>> >> pull out the JSONView stuff and reimplement the "fields" concept. > >>> Couple of > >>> >> notes: > >>> >> > >>> >> - Object representations should be as flat as possible > >>> >> and separate requests should be made to nested resources to get > nested > >>> >> details (i.e. if you have regions and regions/1/regionwidgets, the > >>> regions > >>> >> representation should not contain an array of regionwidgets) > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > I am concerned about the round trips to support this when rendering > the > >>> > page. With any page that has a sufficient number of gadgets, adding > to > >>> the > >>> > number of requests becomes problematic. > >>> > > >>> > >>> I see that rule applying to the "standard" rest endpoints for crud > >>> operations on resources. We will have some number of special endpoints > >>> to support frequently used operations of clients. The major example > >>> there is the page / pages for render endpoint, which will include the > >>> nested regions, regionwidgets, and their rpc tokens, etc. > >>> > >> > >> +1 > > > > So my thought is that we have the standard crud endpoints for all > > individual resources. For frequently-used read operations in which we > > need composite data sets we will have a small number of custom > > endpoints to serve that data. Those are read-only endpoints, they will > > not support create / update / delete operations. > > > > At a time when we need one of our composite data views, such as on a > > page load, the client will make a request and get the composite data - > > page, regions, regionwidgets and so on. The client can decompose those > > into the individual component resources which have corresponding > > angular $resource services, and which talk to the standard endpoints > > to support further crud operations on them. > > > > Make sense / thoughts? > > > >> > >>> > >>> > > >>> >> - All methods should return standard HTTP codes. We should document > >>> this > >>> >> further on the wiki to make sure we all do the same way. > >>> >> - We won't accept partial updates with PUT, we will eventually add > >>> PATCH > >>> >> to support that in the future > >>> >> - If the "fields" query attribute isn't included in a GET then all > >>> fields > >>> >> are returned. > >>> >> - What is the full meta structure we want to return? > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > >>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Matt Franklin < > >>> >> [email protected]> > >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >> > >> +1 for every one of Chris' +1s, unless otherwise noted. > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Geer < > [email protected] > >>> > > >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >>> Oh boy!! :) > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> Comments inline > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < > >>> >> > [email protected] > >>> >> > >>> >wrote: > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > Hey All, > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > As we are starting to look at the rest apis in more detail, > I > >>> would > >>> >> > >>> > like to discuss and agree upon a consistent interface for > our > >>> apis. > >>> >> > >>> > We currently have several developers interested in > contributing > >>> to > >>> >> > the > >>> >> > >>> > apis and the angular branch, and I would like to solidify > the > >>> >> > >>> > interface, methods, response format, etc so that we can be > on > >>> the > >>> >> > same > >>> >> > >>> > page going forward. If we can agree on an api virtualization > >>> layer > >>> >> > >>> > then we should be able to build against it on the server > and on > >>> the > >>> >> > >>> > angular application in parallel. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > I'll start with a proposal and look for feedback to iterate > from > >>> >> > there. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 1. API root url > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > "/api". Drop support for rpc api, move from /api/rest to > just > >>> /api. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 - the only downside of this is that it prohibits > implementing > >>> over > >>> >> > time > >>> >> > >>> and requires a rip/replace approach of the whole system > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Well the development in trunk can continue to happen on /rest. > >>> Angular > >>> >> > > (aka the consuming client for most of these apis) is already > >>> happening > >>> >> > > in a branch, so those changes can be treated as a rip / replace > >>> >> > > easily. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 2. Media Types > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > Initially support only application/json. We can revisit > >>> >> > >>> > application/xml as a nice-to-have. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 3. HTTP Methods > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > GET, PUT, POST, DELETE > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 (We also need to decide if PUT can handle partial updates) > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> I say not. That is what PATCH is for, once everything > supports it: > >>> >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789 > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > My understanding is that PUT should always be a full object > >>> replace. A > >>> >> > > quick search returns the suggestion to use PATCH, or to use > POST to > >>> a > >>> >> > > subresource with a 303 response. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 4. Status Codes > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 200, 201, 400, 401, 403, 404, 500 > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 5. URL formats > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > Use plural nouns (pages, people, widgets). Do not nest > >>> associations > >>> >> > >>> > beyond one level deep. For example: > >>> >> > >>> > /pages/1/regions (ok) > >>> >> > >>> > /pages/1/regions/2/regionwidgets (not ok) > >>> >> > >>> > /regions/2/regionwidgets (ok) > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> I'm not a fan of this requirement. Your example is the exact > >>> reason > >>> >> > I'm not > >>> >> > >>> a fan actually. In all reality, regions don't mean anything > >>> outside a > >>> >> > page, > >>> >> > >>> and region widgets don't mean anything outside of a region. > Yes, > >>> they > >>> >> > have > >>> >> > >>> IDs, but in reality, those IDs should be subordinate to the > parent > >>> >> (so > >>> >> > >>> there should be nothing wrong with having Page 1 with regions > >>> [1,2] > >>> >> and > >>> >> > >>> Page 2 with regions [1,2]). I understand that's not how the DB > >>> works > >>> >> > today > >>> >> > >>> but it's what makes the most logical sense. > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> I agree with Chris. We should not limit to a single level. > That is > >>> >> > counter > >>> >> > >> to a few REST web service principles. > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Fair enough. In this case I guess I would just be looking for > >>> >> > > consistency - will associations be infinitely nest-able. If not, > >>> what > >>> >> > > is the rule to determine where we support more or less deeply > nested > >>> >> > > associations. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 6. Response formats > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 6a. Wrap all responses in an object. All valid (200) > responses > >>> >> should > >>> >> > >>> > be wrapped in an object that includes a "meta" object for > >>> metadata, > >>> >> > >>> > and a "data" object for the response body. This allows us to > >>> >> capture > >>> >> > >>> > or extend metadata associated with a response as needed. Any > >>> >> metadata > >>> >> > >>> > properties should be standardized. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > Example: > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people > >>> >> > >>> > { > >>> >> > >>> > meta: {count: 253, limit: 10, offset: 0, ...} > >>> >> > >>> > data: [ {id: 1, name: 'canonical', ...}, ... ] > >>> >> > >>> > } > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/1 > >>> >> > >>> > { > >>> >> > >>> > meta: { ... } > >>> >> > >>> > data: {id:1, name: 'canonical', ...} > >>> >> > >>> > } > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> This really complicates a couple things, first, it means the > GET > >>> != > >>> >> PUT > >>> >> > >>> since the GET will include the meta data. Can we achieve this > same > >>> >> > result > >>> >> > >>> with HTTP Headers? > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > We could possibly achieve the same with HTTP headers. I prefer > the > >>> >> > > object approach for clarity, since custom http headers are less > >>> >> > > accessible or discoverable than object structure. I get your > point, > >>> >> > > but I see the wrapped object approach used commonly in major > apis. > >>> If > >>> >> > > it's clearly documented and used consistently across the entire > api > >>> I > >>> >> > > don't really see an issue. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 6b. Error objects. In the case of an error, the correct > error > >>> code > >>> >> > >>> > should be returned. In addition, an error object should be > >>> returned > >>> >> > >>> > with a standardized format. Ideally including a verbose, > >>> >> > >>> > human-readable error message for developers, and an > >>> >> internationalized > >>> >> > >>> > readable error message for display to end users. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/25 > >>> >> > >>> > 401 > >>> >> > >>> > { > >>> >> > >>> > developerMessage: 'Unauthorized. Access to this resource > >>> requires > >>> >> > >>> > authentication', > >>> >> > >>> > userMessage: 'Please login', > >>> >> > >>> > stackTrace: ... > >>> >> > >>> > } > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 6c. Partial responses. By default all responses, whether a > list > >>> or > >>> >> > >>> > individual resource, should return a full representation of > the > >>> >> > >>> > resources (not including security constraints). All > endpoints > >>> >> should > >>> >> > >>> > support the query string parameter "fields", which accepts a > >>> comma > >>> >> > >>> > delimited list of fields to build a partial response. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> Hmmm.....what's funny (except for the wasted work) is this is > how > >>> I > >>> >> > >>> originally built the people resource. I changed it because > the > >>> >> > "fields" > >>> >> > >>> approach gets almost impossible to manage with nested > elements (at > >>> >> > least in > >>> >> > >>> Java - rewrite in Ruby anyone??). I'm open to suggestions > though. > >>> I > >>> >> > guess > >>> >> > >>> we could also make a rule that the data objects shouldn't have > >>> nested > >>> >> > >>> elements but that is a tough rule. > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> I think the fields approach makes sense long-term; but, it is > not > >>> >> > critical. > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > I don't really know what the implementation looks like. If you > allow > >>> >> > > field filtering only on properties and deliver only properties > (i.e. > >>> >> > > no nested objects / associations) then I would assume it is > pretty > >>> >> > > straightforward. > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/1 > >>> >> > >>> > { > >>> >> > >>> > meta: { ... }, > >>> >> > >>> > data: { id: 1, name: 'canonical', email: ' > [email protected] > >>> ', > >>> >> > ... } > >>> >> > >>> > } > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > GET /people/1?fields=id,name > >>> >> > >>> > { > >>> >> > >>> > meta: { ... }, > >>> >> > >>> > data: { id: 1, name: 'canonical' } > >>> >> > >>> > } > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 6d. Pagination. All requests that return a list should be > >>> >> paginated. > >>> >> > >>> > The query string parameters "limit" and "offset" should be > used > >>> for > >>> >> > >>> > pagination. On any request in which either parameter is not > set, > >>> >> they > >>> >> > >>> > should default to 10 and 0 respectively. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 6e. Use camelCase for properties. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 7. Endpoints. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 7a. Standard endpoints: there should be standard CRUD > endpoints > >>> to > >>> >> > >>> > support each rave resource. In other words, any operation > >>> possible > >>> >> in > >>> >> > >>> > rave should be possible through a rest api action. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > 7b. Special endpoints. In the case of certain client needs, > we > >>> can > >>> >> > >>> > implement a small number of special endpoints to fulfill a > >>> specific > >>> >> > >>> > role. The primary case in point is retrieving a page for > render, > >>> >> > which > >>> >> > >>> > returns a page, its regions, its regionWidgets, and their > render > >>> >> > data. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> +1 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > Ok, I think that's it. This is meant as a proposal only - > we are > >>> >> > >>> > looking for feedback to go forward. Thoughts? > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >
