[Caml-list] Fwd: Using Uri with Google Distance Matrix API

[Caml-list] Fwd: Using Uri with Google Distance Matrix API

[Ollie Frolovs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4600 bytes --]

This is just a follow-up to say that i had used a workaround suggested by David Sheets to resolve my issue with Uri.
The Google Distance Matrix API service works when Uri replaces the pipe characters with %7C.
Since creating a request to API involves a rather inconvenient concatenating of the arguments, i have made a suggestion to https://github.com/avsm/ocaml-uri/issues/28 that an optional ~sep argument is introduced to Uri functions, like the one in Jane Street’s Core.String.concat.

Many thanks, Ollie

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ollie Frolovs <of12343@my.bristol.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Using Uri with Google Distance Matrix API
> Date: 29 October 2013 11:51:13 GMT
> To: David Sheets <sheets@alum.mit.edu>
> 
> 
> On 28 Oct 2013, at 22:26, David Sheets <sheets@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:58 PM, O Frolovs
>> <ollie.frolovs.2012@my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Hello
>> 
>> Hi Ollie,
> Hi David
> 
>> 
>>> I'm learning OCaml and currently trying to use it for my project at uni.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, i’m trying to use Uri [1] to create a Google Distance
>>> Matrix request and i find it a bit awkward since the API uses pipe
>>> character "|" for separating parameter values but Uri uses commas ","
>>> and i could not find a way to override it:
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the Google Distance Matrix API does not conform to the
>> Internet Standard for URIs. Specifically, the pipe character "|" is
>> not allowed in a well-formed URI. I'm not sure why Google has decided
>> to use this character out of the very many separators available to
>> them.
> 
> This is very odd, indeed.
> 
>> 
>>> utop # open Core.Std;;
>>> utop # #require "uri";;
>>> 
>>> utop # let x = Uri.of_string "http://www.github.com/";;
>>> val x : Uri.t = <abstr>
>>> 
>>> utop # let y = Uri.add_query_param x ("origins", ["Bristol";
>>> "Cambridge"; "Plymouth"; "London"]);;
>>> val y : Uri.t = <abstr>
>>> 
>>> utop # Uri.to_string y;;
>>> - : string = "http://www.github.com/?origins=Bristol,Cambridge,Plymouth,London"
>>> 
>>> This is not what the API expects.
>>> 
>>> I also tried concatenating the origins values before passing it to Uri
>>> but as you can see below, Uri performed character escape on pipe
>>> characters. So besides not looking elegant, it did not work:
>>> 
>>> utop # String.concat ~sep:"|" ["Bristol"; "Cambridge"; "Plymouth"; "London"];;
>>> - : string = "Bristol|Cambridge|Plymouth|London"
>>> 
>>> utop # let y = Uri.add_query_param x ("origins", [c]);;
>>> val y : Uri.t = <abstr>
>>> 
>>> utop # Uri.to_string y;;
>>> - : string = "http://www.github.com/?origins=Bristol%7CCambridge%7CPlymouth%7CLondon"
>>> 
>>> I am wondering
>>> 
>>> (a) if there is a way to make Uri do what i want, that is to use pipe
>>> character to separate the origins values.
>> 
>> I do not believe there is a way to accomplish this in Uri 1.3.8. Have
>> you tried submitting the percent-encoded query string to the API to
>> see if Google properly interprets the escaping of invalid characters?
>> 
> I just tried this and it worked! Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
>> Uri is designed to take as input any string and produce as output only
>> those strings that are conformant to RFC 3986.
>> 
>>> (b) why Uri does not have an optional ~sep parameter, like Jane
>>> Street's Core.String.concat does?
>> 
>> No one has implemented it yet. :-) There has been discussion about
>> significantly changing this API feature for 1.4 as well.
>> 
>> If you are not manipulating the URIs heavily and are not in need of
>> input sanitation, using Uri may not be necessary unless another
>> library requires input of Uri.t values.
> I am using LWT and Cohttp which i believe requires Uri.t. 
> So i am very happy the escaping worked with the API :)
> 
>> If none of this helps you, please create an issue at
>> <https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-uri/issues?state=open> and we may end
>> up adding something to help you in the next revision (could be later
>> this week depending on how persuasive you are and how extensive the
>> feature).
> I will. I think the question here is how ‘real-world’ the Uri library wants to be.
> As an example – I do not know much about JSON yet, but i would expect
> JSON libraries to make compromises to work with the real web services.
> Otherwise, what good is the library if it only works with carefully chosen
> artificial examples, RFC-compliant or not.
> 
>> Hope this helps,
> It helped a lot, thanks again! :)
> 
> Regards,
> Ollie


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12485 bytes --]