On 5/22/2013 2:40 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/2013 5:59 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>>
>>> To that comment I could retort that what you are fighting for is an edge case artificially crafted to demonstrate the problem. How many users in their would design their resources this way IRL?
>>>
>>
>> Its not artificial. When I refactored Resteasy to conform to the more limiting (for no good reason) spec algorithm a regression test failed:
>>
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RESTEASY-636
>>
>> This is a user reported issue.
>
> I see, thanks for the pointer.
>
> FWIW, after I managed to decipher the code attached to the issue, it seems to me that moving the DELETE resource method from parent resource to the sub-resource should solve the problem, which even makes sense - if you want to support DELETE directly on the sub-resource URI, you should handle it in the sub-resource class.
>
Some aren't very receptive to telling them to refactor their code. I
have other users who've written their own IDL compilers that generate
even nastier JAX-RS code. I personally don't get the point, but it
always falls on deaf ears.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com