SomethingRequest wouldn't have an ID field so the consumer could never provide one. Then you'd need a separate contract object for updates. A better option might be to secure your API so that consumers can only update what they should have access to.

Thank you.

No problem.

Oh, Spring won't bind fields if there are no according setters. So, we can just keep in mind that adding setter means exposing field.

Hey, I don’t know if you are aware of that but we are going to provide a functional Web Framework in Spring Framework 5 as an alternative to the regular Spring MVC annotation based programming model, more details on https://spring.io/blog/2016/09/22/new-in-spring-5-functional-web-framework

This is currently Work In Progress, so I just give it a try using Kotlin

I am wondering why in Kotlin I have to specify explicitly

HandlerFunction

while in Java a raw lambda is fine

Any idea?

Without it Kotlin type inference seems not able to find the right type

And I wonder if we could do something on our side to improve that or if it is an issue in Kotlin that could be fixed

Or maybe just a stupid mistake I made while porting it from java 8 to Kotlin 😉

Kotlin is more picky on SAMs, if the class has an overloaded method that also receives a SAM kotlin can’t infere which one do you want

but indeed, seems like this isn’t the case

as

route

isn’t overloaded

FYI the Java version: https://github.com/sdeleuze/projectreactor.io/blob/spring-based-website/src/main/java/io/projectreactor/Application.java#L32-L50

I did remember having a problem like that with Spark

can you specify the

T

type?

I mean, in order to avoid

RouterFunction<*>

Yeah I am going to have a look, maybe we could remove the generic type ...

I made a try by removing the generics, so we just have

RouterFunction

instead of

RouterFunction<*>

but same issue

With methods like

<T> Router route(RequestPredicate predicate, HandlerFunction<T> handlerFunction)

and

<T> Router andRoute(RequestPredicate predicate, HandlerFunction<T> handlerFunction)

Kotlin is not able to infer the type if I dont specify

HandlerFunction

explicitly

route(GET("/docs/api/**"), HandlerFunction { … })

works

route(GET(”/docs/api/**"), { … })

does not work

There is no overloaded method involved

So I still don’t see why Kotlin accept the first but not the second form

Any help from a Kotlin guru appreciated 😉

(side note I think we are going to remove the generic type from

RouterFunction

, but no impact on my question since the issue is still there without)

@sdeleuze try asking in the #general channel... Some of the jetbrains folks are there