I will look into the fillInValues... and will accomodate the Map.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Your patch has been applied with few minor modificatios.
> Many thanks for your help, apologies for a delay in dealing with it
>
> Have a look please at the client side, th
Your patch has been applied with few minor modificatios.
Many thanks for your help, apologies for a delay in dealing with it
Have a look please at the client side, the proxies can 'unwrap'
parameter beans, so InjectionUtils.fillInValuesFromBean
maya need to be updated a bit for Map properties hand
Did you get chance to look into the new code? Does it satisfy your
requirement?
Biju B
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Updated JIRA with path and modified files for the new implementation...
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>> Your patch contai
Updated JIRA with path and modified files for the new implementation...
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Your patch contains empty (if) branches so that can not be committed;
> Allowing for Map will result in all but the last
> name/value pairs with identical names being
Your patch contains empty (if) branches so that can not be committed;
Allowing for Map will result in all but the last
name/value pairs with identical names being lost
Does it make sense ?
Cheers, Sergey
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Biju Nair wrote:
> I am confused on what you mean by "empty
I am confused on what you mean by "empty branches", can you just elaborate?
Do you mean we need to have only Map> and not
Map?
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Please check a previous message, we need a better Map check and no
> empty branches
>
> thanks, Sergey
>
> On T
Please check a previous message, we need a better Map check and no
empty branches
thanks, Sergey
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Yes I can help you in improving. Let me know what needs to be done.
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>> I did. It need
Yes I can help you in improving. Let me know what needs to be done.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> I did. It needs a bit more work and I'll need to allocate some time to
> add a test and see what needs to be improved, ex, having empty if
> branches is not possible. Rea
I did. It needs a bit more work and I'll need to allocate some time to
add a test and see what needs to be improved, ex, having empty if
branches is not possible. Realistically, it has to be Map> (where Primitive is String or Integer/etc, to handle
m.v=1&m.v=2 or similar), so isMapSupported() shoul
Did you get chance to look into this?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Sorry, not yet, hoping to do it shortly
>
> Sergey
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> > did you get chance to update the patch and test it?
> >
> > Biju
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2
Sorry, not yet, hoping to do it shortly
Sergey
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> did you get chance to update the patch and test it?
>
> Biju
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Biju Nair wrote:
>
>> Attached the path in JIRA.
>>
>> Attaching with this mail also.
>>
>> On W
did you get chance to update the patch and test it?
Biju
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Attached the path in JIRA.
>
> Attaching with this mail also.
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Sergey Beryozkin
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Can you attach the updated patch to JIRA ple
Attached the path in JIRA.
Attaching with this mail also.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can you attach the updated patch to JIRA please ? I'm not seeing a
> patch attached to your email message.
>
> Supporting explicit Lists for JAX-RS param annotations (@Path
Hi
Can you attach the updated patch to JIRA please ? I'm not seeing a
patch attached to your email message.
Supporting explicit Lists for JAX-RS param annotations (@PathParam,
etc) is a JAX-RS spec requirement.
Supporting explicit Lists which are mapped to request payloads or
responses is the ext
I gave the Explict Map Support, becuase CXF was supporting Explict List
support.
The code which i send you have only support for beans with nested Map
interface.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> That was my mistake. I was using Eclipse IDE and I formatted the java file,
> so
That was my mistake. I was using Eclipse IDE and I formatted the java file,
so the whole file got messed up.
I revereted the changes and made support only for bean with nested Map
interface (FormParam(""),QueryParam("")..)
Attaching the changed file with this mail.
--
Actually, I can see you modifying the code for explicit Maps be
supported as well.
That is not a bad idea but I'd prefer for one issue (to do with
parameter beans containing Map fileds) addressed first.
Explicit Maps can be supported right now (a bit of work is needed to
register ParameterHandler
Hi
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Updated the JIRA with DIFF file.
>
> May I know whether that worked.
>
I have problems applying the patch, as it seems like InjectionUtils
has been completely changed, I can't spot, by looking at the diff
file, what the actual changes are.
I
Updated the JIRA with DIFF file.
May I know whether that worked.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi - did you see the comments on JIRA ?
> Please update your local snapshot and create a patch
>
> thanks, Sergey
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> >
Hi - did you see the comments on JIRA ?
Please update your local snapshot and create a patch
thanks, Sergey
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Created JIRA - CXF-3529
>
> Let me know what is the next step?
>
> Biju
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>
Created JIRA - CXF-3529
Let me know what is the next step?
Biju
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Biju Nair wrote:
> > Added the Map feature for service level and bean level.
> >
> > I was not able to check-in the files, so attac
Hi
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Added the Map feature for service level and bean level.
>
> I was not able to check-in the files, so attaching the same.
>
I don't see an attachment, but what you need to do is to create a CXF
JIRA, attach a patch and I will apply it.
> Fo
Added the Map feature for service level and bean level.
I was not able to check-in the files, so attaching the same.
Following are the changes,
Added Map Support to Rest Based Services
-- Added InjectionUtils.injectIntoMap
-- Added InjectionUtils.convertMultimapToMap
-- Changed Signature of Injec
Yes, that URL is correct [1]
Did you have problems checking it out ? If yes then it must've been a
transient issue
Cheers, Sergey
[1] http://cxf.apache.org/source-repository.html
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> i don't see the SVN branch.
>
> I am trying to change in http:/
i don't see the SVN branch.
I am trying to change in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk - is that
ok? If not can you sen me the SVN link?
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> 2.4.1-SNAPSHOT is the trunk version - so please check it out if you
> decide to work on a pa
2.4.1-SNAPSHOT is the trunk version - so please check it out if you
decide to work on a pacth, I'll then backmerge it to
2.3.5-SNAPSHOT
Cheers, Sergey
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Which version of CXF you are working on?
>
> I was working with 2.3.1.
>
> On Thu, May 12, 20
Which version of CXF you are working on?
I was working with 2.3.1.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> > Just to clarify,
> >
> > the user bean will be something like,
> > class User{
> > Map params;
> > }
> >
>
Hi
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Just to clarify,
>
> the user bean will be something like,
> class User{
> Map params;
> }
>
> Request Data will be user.params.k1=v1&*user.*params.k2=v2
Yes if User is a nested bean, otherwise just
params.k1=v1¶ms.k2=v2
if we have FormPa
Just to clarify,
the user bean will be something like,
class User{
Map params;
}
Request Data will be user.params.k1=v1&*user.*params.k2=v2
Finally, the params map will have [{k1=v1},{k2=v2}]
Right?
I will check this and let you know.
Biju B
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Sergey Beryoz
Hi
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Yes I understood that we don't need two solution for same problem :).
>
> Just want you let know, if you try to put something like
> "testaddress.City=Pleasanton&testAddress.stateName=CA"
> testAddress.stateName will not be populated. What I
Yes I understood that we don't need two solution for same problem :).
Just want you let know, if you try to put something like
"testaddress.City=Pleasanton&testAddress.stateName=CA"
testAddress.stateName will not be populated. What I saw in your code is, for
first parameter the TestAddress instanc
Hi
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Just for clarification,
> If I have a Employee bean as follows,
> class Employee{
> String name;
> Address homeAddress;
> //getters and setters are there
> }
>
> class Address{
> String line1;
> String l
Thanks for the reply.
Just for clarification,
If I have a Employee bean as follows,
class Employee{
String name;
Address homeAddress;
//getters and setters are there
}
class Address{
String line1;
String line2;
//getters and setters are there
}
there is a rest service as Stri
Hi
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> But in the first approach the client users has to follow Java naming
> conventions (espc a non-java client) right?
Clients use "user.name" or "user.address.value" if they need to, the
difference between the two appr
Thanks for the reply.
But in the first approach the client users has to follow Java naming
conventions (espc a non-java client) right?
Regarding the MultiValueMap, i like the idea, but not for Bean based. Here
the developers need to convert the map to Bean right?
I still prefer to use *@FormPara
Hi
Please see comments inline
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Biju Nair wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Currently I was helping a team in building rest based services using CXF. I
> noticed that for bean based service arguments (*Ex. String
> getData(@FormParam("") TestObj tObj)*)
> you have to include @
36 matches
Mail list logo
