Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Oct 12, 2021. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@berezovskyi
Copy link
Contributor

Previously, all arrays were treated as OSLC Query results unless the
array type was explicitly marked with @OslcNotQueryResult annotation.
This prevented from returning arrays of mixed-typed OSLC resources (as
Object[] or IResource[]) because there is no way to annotate those
classes accordingly.

From now on, only arrays returned from JAX-RS methods annotated with
@OslcQueryCapability will be automatically treated as OSLC Query results
(again, unless the returned array type is annotated with the
@OslcNotQueryResult).

Previously, all arrays were treated as OSLC Query results unless the
array type was explicitly marked with @OslcNotQueryResult annotation.
This prevented from returning arrays of mixed-typed OSLC resources (as
Object[] or IResource[]) because there is no way to annotate those
classes accordingly.

From now on, only arrays returned from JAX-RS methods annotated with
@OslcQueryCapability will be automatically treated as OSLC Query results
(again, unless the returned array type is annotated with the
@OslcNotQueryResult).

Signed-off-by: Andrew Berezovskyi <andriib@kth.se>
@berezovskyi
Copy link
Contributor Author

Requires #22 to be fixed first.

@berezovskyi
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jadelkhoury @jamsden please review

Copy link

@jamsden jamsden left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What are the implications of this change to existing server and client implementations?

@berezovskyi
Copy link
Contributor Author

This will have impact on the services that:

  1. Have a JAX-RS method that returns an array of resources, like Requirement[].
  2. The JAX-RS method DOES NOT have @OslcQueryCapability annotation.
  3. Requirement does not have a @ OslcNotQueryResult annotation.
  4. The developer expects Lyo to wrap this array as a Query result.

We expect the number of services impacted to be ZERO.

@jamsden jamsden self-requested a review April 23, 2019 12:42
@berezovskyi
Copy link
Contributor Author

And no implications for the clients at all

@jadelkhoury jadelkhoury merged commit 631c78a into master Apr 23, 2019
@jadelkhoury jadelkhoury deleted the b531986-query-annot branch April 23, 2019 20:08
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants