cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benson Margulies" <bim2...@basistech.com>
Subject RE: I see it but I don't quite believe it
Date Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:53:27 GMT
OK. I started out trying to figure out how the JS code should pick its HTTP method, and tripped
over this. So now I'm back to my original question. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Jervis [mailto:jliu@iona.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:15 PM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: I see it but I don't quite believe it
> 
> Hi Benson, this ConventionStrategy stuff is only used by CXF 
> REST HTTP binding, i.e., the default mapping strategy between 
> HTTP methods and Java methods is based on name conventions, 
> e.g., getXXX maps to HTTP GET, updateXXX maps to HTTP PUT 
> etc. If the default mapping does not satisfy the needs, one 
> can always customize the mapping using annotations. Not sure 
> how this relates to JavaScript, we don’t support exposing 
> JavaScript as RESTful services in CXF, do we?
> 
> Cheers,
> Jervis
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bim2007@basistech.com]
> > Sent: 2007年11月20日 21:30
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: I see it but I don't quite believe it
> > 
> > ConventionStrategy.java seems to be choosing HTTP methods based on 
> > operation names? Is this really how we do it? Should the 
> JavasScript 
> > code do likewise? What if some poor soul names a method 
> getXXX and has 
> > input parameters?
> 
> ----------------------------
> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland) Registered 
> Number: 171387 Registered Address: The IONA Building, 
> Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
> 

Mime
View raw message