I think this interface looks great! In fact, I was going to suggest just
that. This give more structure and consistency to all APIs. Can't wait to
see it.
Jun
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys -
>
> So I was just starting to add a messaging service to the java code and I
> saw
> that the new java service interfaces still need a lot of cleanup. I also
> noticed how similar they were to one another because of how structured the
> rest calls have been making everything. So... I started thinking about a
> generics based interface that could work for all of the different types of
> objects we currently have and could hopefully extend to photos, movies,
> etc.
>
>
> Anybody want to give me some quick feedback on a simple service like this:
>
> // T is the type of model object that this service deals with. (I know,
> crappy name, feel free to suggest a better one)
> // T = Activity, Person, Message or Map<String, String> (ie Data)
>
> public interface ItemService<T> {
>
> public ResponseItem<RestfulCollection<T>> getItems(UserId userId,
> GroupId groupId, String appId, Set<String> fields, SortOrder sort,
> SortDirection direction, FilterType filter,
> int first, int max, SecurityToken token);
>
> public ResponseItem<T> getItem(UserId userId, GroupId groupId, String
> appId,
> Set<String> fields, String itemId, SecurityToken token);
>
> public ResponseItem<T> deleteItem(UserId userId, GroupId groupId, String
> appId,
> String itemId, SecurityToken token);
>
> public ResponseItem createItem(UserId personId, GroupId groupId, String
> appId,
> Set<String> fields, T item, SecurityToken token);
>
> // None of the services have this right now... but it maps to "put" in
> rest. Will we ever actually use this call?
> public ResponseItem updateItem(UserId personId, GroupId groupId, String
> appId,
> Set<String> fields, T item, SecurityToken token);
>
> }
>
> Now Data doesn't -quite- fit with this model because it doesn't return a
> List<T> it should return a Map<String, T> but yeah.. we can special case
> that somehow for now or eventually be more standard and get rid of it. We
> could also compose userId, groupId and appId into an object to remove some
> of this overly large param list clutter or something...
>
>
> Alright, so, "horrible idea I've lost my mind" or "so, so idea I don't
> think
> it'll work long term" or "sure, go and refactor it".
> Thanks.
>
> - Cassie
>
