On 8/31/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oisin Hurley wrote:
>> I am not sure I understand the issue with create/delete (except if
>> PUT and DEL are disabled). Posting/putting to a URL that doesn't
>> exist yet to create that resource can be troubling. Is that the
>> issue? Are you looking for some kind of factory service pattern to
>> create resources?
>>
>> Or am I completely mis-understanding the issue you're describing
>> here? :)
>
> Apologies for not making the context clearer - however, you've got the
> point: there needs to be either a resource factory, or a generic
> resource
> holder to process create/delete of resources. I think I was attempting
> to say that a first cut would be ok to support just the GET/POST (as the
> most pressing scenarios) and then the PUT/DEL and factory approach could
> follow as a feature improvement.
>
> I will put up a wiki summary on this thread.
>
> cheers
> --oh
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Yes, GET/POST first, PUT/DELETE later sounds reasonable to me.
I've been struggling myself with the question on whether or not we need
some kind of resource holder/factory to create resources, and I'm now
starting to think that it really depends on how you view your resources.
Just a wild thought here...
If you view your resources as objects, you'll probably say that you need
a factory to do customerFactory->create("http://..../customer/1234";).
Then you'll say customers->get("http://..../customer/1234";) to retrieve
your customer object.
If on the other hand you view the Web as a giant distributed file
system, then it's not so shocking to say:
customers->createFile("http://..../customer1234";);
customers->getFile("http://...../customer1234";);
Thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Sebastien
It's not clear that there is a difference between customers and
customerFactory in your example. You are saying that there is some resource
that causes the correct interpretation of PUT type requrests
w.r.tgenerating/recording new resources that represent customers. This
resource
itself may, for example, represent the list of customers it has created in
response to GET type requests. The relationship between Customers and
Customer is not a wired relationship in the SCA sense but a resource
relationship as dictated by the URLs used to represent endpoints.
Regards
Simon
