jsr339-experts@jax-rs-spec.java.net

[jsr339-experts] Re: Proposal for resolving issues #75 and #78

From: Guilherme Silveira <guilherme.silveira_at_caelum.com.br>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:29:40 -0300

Hi Marek,

Not an objection, but just a comment. I am not the biggest fan of
generics for return type covariance as in here:
+public interface InvocationBuilder<T extends InvocationBuilder>

But its just a comment, with or without it, the API provider is
capable of doing:

public interface IB {
  IB type();
}

public class MyIB implements IB {
  MyIB type();
}

Regards

Guilherme Silveira
Caelum | Ensino e Inovação
http://www.caelum.com.br/



On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Marek Potociar
<marek.potociar_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> Hello experts,
>
> Please have a look at the comments & patch attached to the ClientRequest.Builder vs. ClientRequestBuilder clarifiaction
> task in Jira: http://java.net/jira/browse/JAX_RS_SPEC-78
>
> Also, please have a look at the comments & patch attached to the Jira task that is meant to explore possibilities of
> unifying sync and async HTTP method invocation in a single web resource class: http://java.net/jira/browse/JAX_RS_SPEC-75
>
> Please review both proposals and add any feedback to the tasks as comments or send it via email to the EG list.
>
> If there are no objections, I plan to push the proposed patches to the public repository by Monday.
>
> Thank you,
> Marek
>