Mailing-List: contact jspwiki-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jspwiki-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of andrew.jaquith@mac.com
 designates 17.148.16.97 as permitted sender)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Sender: andrew.jaquith@mac.com
Message-id: <48EDD54F-EA5E-407F-A497-4BE4A6A517A5@mac.com>
From: Andrew Jaquith <andrew.jaquith@mac.com>
To: jspwiki-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-reply-to: <77DE4C2F-1732-4C1D-A7C5-042AA21D6BD1@ecyrd.com>
Subject: Re: REST-ful URLs [Was: url rewriting supported?]
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:43:21 -0400
References: <485919CA.9000902@ops.co.at>
 <02C1EF06-C327-4A18-B967-1C410894D3B5@mac.com> <48593648.7010409@ops.co.at>
 <485967B4.8010401@abstrakt.de> <485A0DB3.1040703@ops.co.at>
 <2B145127-837F-4C98-85D5-CBA35EB6FC14@mac.com>
 <AC60A9BA-8825-4507-90FF-DF01A40F2F8D@ecyrd.com>
 <CFEB2EB8-A746-4DC6-8BC5-FCBF3A17468F@mac.com>
 <4114C84B-6A48-4873-9A0E-CF3A19A5E7A3@ecyrd.com>
 <4D2C088D-4208-4D49-A85D-543E83FBE4D2@mac.com>
 <AF15C2F2-E25C-4769-AFC6-340663106277@ecyrd.com>
 <48728984.5020306@altheim.com>
 <926126B8-8BD2-46C9-92A9-86924F0555CE@ecyrd.com>
 <487310E7.9000801@altheim.com>
 <C5386281-E9DC-4B71-B70E-2AF85575B96E@ecyrd.com>
 <48732257.9070000@altheim.com>
 <89AF646B-A78E-492A-A3C8-B0D3FED7A368@ecyrd.com>
 <48732901.4050405@altheim.com>
 <CE4CDB55-7D06-48CA-BED9-F8B64150B76C@ecyrd.com>
 <9CBCDA80-A928-4E58-BC66-2831734C333E@mac.com> <4873E931.6070200@altheim.com>
 <77DE4C2F-1732-4C1D-A7C5-042AA21D6BD1@ecyrd.com>

Janne --

I was expecting constructive -- rather than categorical -- comments  
from you. I did not perceive that you had many positive suggestions,  
and that disappoints me.

I will respond in detail later, but not today.

Andrew

On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:01 AM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:

>> I actually prefer using the '/' since it sideways fits into my  
>> existing
>> URL schema. My schema:
>>
>>  baseURL collectionHierarchy [objectId] action ['?' parameters]
>>
>> Janne's scheme (from what I understand):
>>
>>  baseURL  [collectionHierarchy/objectId] action ['?' parameters]
>
> Close, but no.  The DefaultURLConstructor schema is
>
> baseURL action [collectionHierarchy/objectId] ['?' parameters].
>
> What I am just arguing that the schema that you want *requires*  
> code.  Or mod_rewrite.  Can't be done with Stripes automatically.
>
>> be resolvable, which in this system means an absolute URL. If  
>> Stripes is
>> capable of parsing an arbitrary depth collection hierarchy (or  
>> directory
>> structure, if that's what we're essentially mirroring), then that's  
>> fine.
>
> No, it cannot.
>
>> I really hope we don't have to use some ugly syntax for that. I don't
>> have a requirement for arbitrary depth at all, nor can I foresee  
>> that.
>> It's just too ugly and complicated for most users. Wikis have been  
>> flat
>> since their inception and I'm fine with them being flat.
>
> The point is that you don't have to use them.  However, for some  
> cases, the flat namespace is a problem (like the Weblog plugin -  
> currently we have to rely on naming conventions to identify pages,  
> and you know how much of a mess that becomes.  Would be much nicer  
> to just embed them as subpages for the current page.)
>
>> It's really hard to imagine that annotations could be less flexible  
>> than
>> code.
>
> They are, since everything in them needs to be a static value.  It  
> cannot be recomputed at runtime.
>
>> I don't see that as a barrier to adoption. And if we know we're  
>> going to
>> using Stripes in 3.0 I can't see any reason not to *begin* to use  
>> it now.
>
> There is, since it requires a massive change to the internals of  
> JSPWiki (or else it won't be useful).
>
> /Janne