On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Ben Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2009, at 12:09, Chris Chabot wrote:
>
> '@self' is not a collection by any definition of the word, it's a single
>> object, hence the lack of the collection (and the lack of filtering, there
>> is only one 'self' and that's the viewer :)
>>
>> The same goes for activities, a query on /activities/@me/@self returns a
>> collection of activities (since it can contain 0, 1 or many results),
>> however /activities/@me/@self/<activityId> can only return 0 or 1 results,
>> so it returns an activity record and not a RestfulCollection.
>>
>
> But that's not what the spec says should happen: If the request is
> specifically for a single contact (e.g. because the request contains
> Additional Path Information like /@me/@all/{id} or /@me/@self), then entry
> MUST be an object containing the single item returned (i.e. "entry": [ { /*
> first item */ } ] and "entry": { /* only item */ } respectively).
>
> Unless I'm reading it wrong, /@me/@self should still return
> <response><entry><person></person></entry></response>
There are 2 parts to the definition:
1) if the request could possibly return multiple items (as is normally the
case), this value MUST always be an array of results, even if there happens
to be 0 or 1 matching results
if something could return multiple entries it has to be a collection,
however /@me/@self is a single entry, so this doesn't apply here
2) If the request is specifically for a single contact (e.g. because the
request contains Additional Path Information like /@me/@all/{id} or
/@me/@self), then entry MUST be an object containing the single item
returned
So if the query is for /@me/@self it *MUST be a single entry.*
I think your either confused and consfusing /@me/@self with /@me/@all (which
is an PortableContacts way of saying /@me/@friends), or your a believer in
possessions and believe that our definition of a person being a singular
entity is wrong and the spec should be changed to allow for multiple spirits
and/or demons in one physical body. (And i truly hope that is not what your
suggesting :)
> I agree that filter...@friends&filterValue=<userId> is confusing, but
> filterBy=id&filterValue=<userId> would surely remove all people that do not
> have <userId> as their userId! I guess you really want a filterBy AND
> filterOn (or something), or explicitly name filterValue to filterUserIdValue
> (or something).
>
Filtering on /@me/@self is confusing, since it's only one record, what would
you want to filter on?
