To avoid littering my controller's services with #HeaderParam:
#POST
#Path("restService")
public Response restService(#HeaderParam("one") String one,
#HeaderParam("two") String two,
...
Myrequest myrequest)
I tried using the JaxRs 2 #BeanParam that allows me to move the header parameters inside the MyRequest class:
#POST
#Path("restService")
public Response restService(#BeanParam Myrequest myrequest)
public class Myrequest implements Serializable {
#HeaderParam("one") String one,
#HeaderParam("two") String two
#FormParam("shopId") public String shopId;
...
Having many body parameters requires me to write many #FormParam annotations in my Pojo.
This way my controller looks prettier but writing my pojos becomes a nightmare.
Is there a way to avoid writing so many #FormParam annotations? Am I doing it wrong?
Thanks
Related
I have a abstract class and two implementations:
public abstract class Attribute {
// some properties
}
public class CustomAttribute extends Attribute{
private String property1;
}
public class DefaultAttribute extends Attribute{
private String property2;
}
There's another class, which includes these attributes:
public class Step{
private List<Attribute> attributes;
}
Now when Step gets serialized, the self link is missing. I need the self reference, since I want to update the attributes. According to the documentation, jackson needs a little help deciding which class to use. But that does not help, because I need to use both classes. So I build a custom serializer (and registered with a module) for Step and now I wonder how I can construct the link myself. I couldn't find anything in the Spring Data Rest docs regarding this. Since Spring Data Rest adds these links automatically, I think there might be a way to have the protocol/hostname/port information available in the JsonSerializer. How do I get the information in my custom serializer?
Ok, now I use the linkTo() function to get the hostname and port and I manually set the rest of the resource URL in my custom serializer.
final Link attributeLink = linkTo(CustomAttributeRepository.class)
.slash("/api")
.slash("customAttributes")
.slash(attribute.getIdentifier()).withSelfRel();
//#formatter:off
jsonGenerator.writeFieldName("_links");
jsonGenerator.writeStartObject();
jsonGenerator.writeFieldName("self");
jsonGenerator.writeStartObject();
jsonGenerator.writeStringField("href", attributeLink.getHref());
jsonGenerator.writeEndObject();
jsonGenerator.writeEndObject();
//#formatter:on
I have an annotated RepositoryRestResource for domain objects whose fields also contain binary data (images.) The Spring Rest machinery will create nice RESTful links for these fields, but I would also like to introduce a handler that returns the bare binary when browsers send an "image/*" accept header.
I could overlay a controller on the same paths, but it's brittle and I'd rather write a strategy class for this.
Possible? Any idea where to plug it in the Spring plumbing?
TIA,
Edoardo
Using the #RepositoryRestController annotation "properly", you should be able to restrict the controller override to the "image/*" only.
Say you have a simple domain object model (getters/setters and a some annotations omitted...)
public class Item {
#Id
private String id;
private String name;
}
Let's override the controller for image/* only
#RepositoryRestController
#ResponseBody
public class ItemRepositoryRestController {
#Autowired
private ItemRepository repository;
#RequestMapping(value = "/items/{id}", method = RequestMethod.GET,
produces = "image/*")
public Item getItem(#PathVariable(value = "id") String id)
{
Item item = repository.findOne(id);
/* do some magic with your item */
return item;
}
Obviously, no image/* data is returned here - you'll actually get a 400 error - but you do only get to this controller if asking if accepting image/*, while going through the automagic Spring Rest Controller when not asking for image/* if and only if you use #RequestMapping at the method level.
I haven't been to the point where I return raw binary data, you may have to use the HttpServletResponse directly as shown here. Or perhaps you already have an answer for this since in your comment you mention having added another resource path already (in which case I'm interested in how you return the raw data).
A simple question (I hope so...) for RESTEasy experts.
I receive a form posted via POST which contains attributes with '-' in their names :
Example :
return-code=12
I want to map all the content of this POST into a Pojo :
public class MyFormInfo {
public String attr1="";
public String return_code=""; // don't work because return-code is not mapped in return_code
...
The method declaration is the following :
#POST
#Path("/return-cic-payment")
public String receiveForm(MyFormInfo form) throws Exception {
log.info("Return-code is : {}", form.return_code);
}
I don't to map attributes one by one in the parameters lists because the form contains a large number of fields.
Because I can't have an attribute named "return-code" in my POJO, I wonder how to do toget this parameter's value.
A custom mapping can be a solution, but I don't know how to achieve that.
Other idea I try without success, to receive a Map of attribute.
Thanks for your help.
Try this: http://docs.jboss.org/resteasy/docs/1.0.0.GA/userguide/html_single/#_Form
class MyFormInfo{
#FormParam("return-code")
private String returnCode;
//etc.
}
I have at least two different classes like following :
//NOTE : these two classes have getter and setter also
class Artist {
String artistName;
String artistWebsite;
String artistDbpedia;
String artistImage;
List<String> astistAlbumsName;
List<String> astistAlbumsUrl;
}
class Venu {
String VenuName;
String VenuWebsite;
String VenuDbpdia;
String VenuImage;
String VenuDescription;
List<String> venuFans;
}
I want to have a producer class to get an xml file as an input and detect the type of xml (venu/artist) then start to create a product object based on the input.
the problem :
I want to create an interface for aggregate the similarity between above two classes so my interface would be:
interface Model {
public String getImage();
public String getName();
public String getWebsite();
public String getdbpedia();
}
Then I can implement this interface in my builder class and above two classes but how about those different methods?
such as getVenuFans / getArtistAlbumName / etc....?
How can I call them from my producer?
this is my builder :
Class Builder implements Model {
public String getImage(){}
public String getName(){}
public String getWebsite(){}
public String getdbpedia(){}
}
and this can be my producer :
Class Producer {
public Producer()
{
Builder b = null;
//assume Venu and Artist implements Model
b = (Builder) new Venu();
//I don't have access to getVenuFans()!
b = (Builder) new Artist();
//I don't have access to getArtistAlbumsName() / etc...
}
}
You don't have access to those methods because you're casting the objects to a Builder, and Builder doesn't have those methods.
I see what you're trying to do, but I don't think it will work. For example, getVenueFans (I'm assuming you mean venue) is only appropriate for the Venue class. It doesn't make sense to try and abstract that into an interface that other non-Venue classes will implement.
I think what you have is good: You've abstracted the common methods into an interface. To call the methods on Venue and Artist, the consuming code will need to cast the objects to the appropriate type, then call the methods on it. And that's not as bad as you might think. It's the consuming code that knows what type it's dealing with (otherwise, why would it be trying to call getVenueFans?), so that's the point where it makes sense to cast and call the method directly.
I have a really simple customized collection type that inherits from List<> and uses a CollectionDataContract.
When I use DataContractSerializer.WriteObject to serialize it, it respects the CollectionDataContract attribute the way I'd expect; however, when I use it as a return type for a WCF method, I get the default ArrayOfFoo.
I'm wondering if there is some decoration I'm missing in the service contract.
Details:
[DataContract(Namespace = "")]
public class Foo
{
[DataMember]
public string BarString { get; set; }
}
[CollectionDataContract(Namespace = "")]
[Serializable]
public class FooList : List<Foo> {}
If I just instantiate a Foo and then use DataContractSerializer.WriteObject to serialize it, I get what you'd expect:
<FooList>
<Foo>
<BarString>myString1</BarString>
</Foo>
</FooList>
However, if I have a service with a method like this...
[ServiceContract Name = "MyService"]
public interface IMyService
{
[OperationContract, WebGet(UriTemplate = "foos/")]
FooList GetAllFoos();
}
and then do a GET for http://www.someEndpoint.com/foos/, I get this:
<ArrayOfFoo>
<Foo>
<BarString>myString1</BarString>
</Foo>
</ArrayOfFoo>
I've also tried specifying Name="MyFooListName" in the CollectionDataContract attribute. Same results: DataContractSerializer gets the memo; WCF doesn't.
Saeed sent me in the right direction: I inadvertently ended up with XmlSerializer, when I had been hoping for DataContractSerializer.
I had ended up with XmlSerializer... well... by asking for it.
In particular, I had decorated methods in my service with the XmlSerializerFormat like this:
[ServiceContract Name = "MyService"]
public interface IMyService
{
// ... other stuff ...
[OperationContract, WebInvoke(UriTemplate = "foos/", Method = "POST")]
[XmlSerializerFormat]
Foo PostAFoo(Foo yourNewFoo);
}
I had done this in the hopes of forgiving member order in hand-rolled Foo XML blobs. Of course, when one does this one ends up with XmlSerializer, not DataContractSerializer.
When I take away the XmlSerializerFormat attribute, problem solved: WCF is now serializing my FooList collection the way I want.
See MSDN for detail:
The DataContractSerializer does not
support the programming model used by
the XmlSerializer and ASP.NET Web
services. In particular, it does not
support attributes like
XmlElementAttribute and
XmlAttributeAttribute. To enable
support for this programming model,
WCF must be switched to use the
XmlSerializer instead of the
DataContractSerializer.
So the serialization going to be done by XMLSerializer, and you can't change it.
Have you selected Generic types while configuring your WCF service? if not then,
right click and go to configuration, then select Generic Type, by default it is arraylist type.