On 3/21/12 3:01 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/15/12 4:15 PM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/15/12 3:54 PM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say do nothing because it would break existing 1.1 applications when deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so? Before you had to always specify the mapping, and that will continue to take precedence. Can you elaborate?
>>>>>
>>>> We assumed everything could be scanned, you could have an empty web.xml file, and no Application class. This was an incorrect assumption? I know a lot of people use us in this manner. Maybe I just interpreted the 1.1 spec wrong?
>>>
>>> Class scanning and servlet mapping are orthogonal. The only way you can get the servlet mapping in 1.1 is from (i) a web.xml or (ii) the @ApplicationPath annotation on an Application subclass AFAICT, with (i) overriding (ii) if both are present. For the other cases, 1.1 states that "the application MUST be packaged with a web.xml that specifies a servlet mapping for the added servlet".
>>>
>>> Perhaps you're already using a default in Resteasy?
>>>
>>
>> Well, then the spec should allow the case for *no* Application class and no web.xml listing. The default mapping should be "/*" and should work with static content too. This way its very simple for users and no thought has to be put into anything.
>>
>
> I think so far we can all agree, that a default mapping is good. I want to however point out that suggested "/*" as a default mapping is too aggressive in connection with any other technology that uses some default mapping as well (e.g. JSF). For that reason, I suggest to choose a named default mapping directly under the root path e.g. the "/webapi/*" as proposed earlier.
>
Please tell me why "/*" is too aggressive? its easily handled if your
implementation is Filter based.
But, this is orthogonal to the issue of requiring a web.xml or
Application class. I do not think either of these artifacts should be
required to deploy a JAX-RS service.
Bill
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com