On 18 Mar 2014, at 17:54, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
> Yes, Apache did not get the access to the latest one unfortunately, only to the early one, where one of the tests has this issue as far as I remember. So yeah, we have the early TCK compliance only - something I'm honestly referring to :-).
FYI, you do not have a compliance. There's nothing like early TCK compliance. You should not claim to be JAX-RS 2.0 compliant in any way unless you have passed the final JAX-RS 2.0 TCK.
Marek
>
> By the way, recall that if you do something like "@Path("subresource/sub/{id}")" then a subresource locator wins - which is really not right, meaning that it wins in this case, but loses in the other case...
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
> On 18/03/14 16:47, Bill Burke wrote:
>> I guess you haven't passed the TCK yet then. :)
>>
>> On 3/18/2014 12:45 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> The fact a sub-resource is discarded per the spec in this case is indeed
>>> a major spec issue, can really affect the spec quality as seen by the
>>> users. FYI, I did not bother updating CXF to get subresources ignored in
>>> the case like the one below...
>>>
>>> Thanks, Sergey
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/03/14 16:38, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> Yet another user complaining about the JAX-RS matching algorithm...
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy! More to follow :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [Resteasy-developers] Upgrading from 2.3.3 to 3.0.6
>>>> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:34:30 -0400
>>>> From: XXXXXX
>>>> To: resteasy-developers_at_lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> We're attempting to move from 2.3.3 (final) to 3.0.6 (final) and
>>>> experiencing a few issues. One is an apparent change to the matching
>>>> algorithm - for example, we have...
>>>>
>>>> @Path("path")
>>>> public interface Resource
>>>> {
>>>> @Path("subresource/{id}")
>>>> SubResource get(@PathParam("id") String id);
>>>>
>>>> @PUT
>>>> @Path("subresource/{id}")
>>>> String open(@PathParam("id") String id);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> public interface SubResource
>>>> {
>>>> @DELETE
>>>> String close();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Previously that would work fine. Now we get an exception / 405 code
>>>> because it finds the PUT (only/instead). If I comment out the PUT, then
>>>> the DELETE gets called fine. What is the best way to address this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>