Not sure I follow. What is the purpose of isReadable/isWritable then?
Marek
On 02/01/2012 06:20 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> On 2/1/12 12:17 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>> I would prefer to make it not generic. (Alas we can't do the same for MBR/MBW...)
>>
>
> well, it makes sense on MBR/MBW cuz the generic type could be used to break ties when matching.
>
>
>> Marek
>>
>> On 02/01/2012 04:38 PM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is the generic type supposed to be used for matching purposes? i.e. if you have
>>>>
>>>> ReaderInterceptor<Widget>
>>>>
>>>> that interceptor will only be applied to that type?
>>>
>>> No, that was never the intent. I think we've been going back and forth on the use of generics in the interceptors.
>>> What is your preference?
>>>
>>> -- Santiago
>>>
>>>> Not good, IMO, as you would need to recalcuate interceptors chains per-request (on the client) and per-response (on
>>>> the server). Is there really an existing usecase on why we need this?
>>>>
>>>> If you want to go this route, IMO, Reader/WriterInterceptor should have a isReadable()/isWritable() method just like
>>>> MessageBodyReader/Writer has. Also you should be allowed to have @Produces/_at_Consumes which would effect binding as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bill Burke
>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>
>