Eduard Moraru wrote:
> Hi, here's my 2 cents re the first proposal...
>
> Why do we have separation between objects and tags/comments? Shouldn't
> the objects mapping be enough to handle them?
>
Of course objects are enough to handle them but since comments and tags
are very "useful" objects imho it's worth to expose them *also* as
separate resources that can accept specific media types.
I mean, imagine you want to tag a page. If you have
/spaces/{space}/pages/{page}/tags
You can do a POST to that URI by sending, for example, just the new tag.
Something like:
curl -d "foo" http://localhost:8080/spaces/Main/pages/WebHome/tags
If you handle this *only* with objects you will need to post a more
complex media type, typically an XML containing the property name,
value, etc.
Same thing for comments:
curl -d "I like this page"
http://localhost:8080/spaces/Main/pages/WebHome/comments
> And does it make sense to have this, when we already know the guid of
> the object we want:
>
I agree that with guid the old way of identifying objects is useless.
I put it in the resource list because it is the current way of
identifying objects. And maybe somebody has a reason to leave it.
> The drawback would be that we loose:
> * /tags/{tag1}[,{tag2},{tag3}...][?start=offset&number=n] (The list
> of pages tagged with tags {tag1}, {tag2}, {tag3}, ...)
> Of course, we could still have it as a convention or we could even
> create a generic way of getting this result with other objects as well.
>
I don't understand why you say we "loose". If we want to expose a /tags
resource we can do this. And I think that it's a resource worth to be
exposed.
> Related to pages, we could also have:
> * /pages[?start=offset&number=n] (The list of available pages in the
> space in the entire wiki)
> Could we need it?
>
Probably for indexing purposes that could be useful.
> Thanks.
>
> P.S.: From what I asked around, it seems that attachments are not
> objects. That seems weird to me because, intuitively, the attachments
> should be objects on a page of the class Attachment. On attachments you
> have versioning, meta-data and an attachment can exist on a page or not,
> the behaviour of an object. Could anybody explain the reason for this
> please?
>
AFAIK, it's for historical reason. Yesterday I was asking ThomasM how
attachments work because me too I found it a bit counterintuitive.
Thanks.
-Fabio
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
