[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

From: Bill Burke <>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:07:12 -0400

On 3/15/12 4:17 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 09:00 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?
> IIUC, such behavior goes beyond the spec. But I still fail to understand how the scanning relates to the default
> mapping. Reading JAX-RS 1.1 it seems that a user has to provide an explicit mapping, otherwise the app would fail to deploy.
> Now the proposal is to create a default value for this explicit mapping that had to exist in every JAX-RS 1.x application.

Again, in Resteasy, we allow an empty web.xml and no Application class.
  In this scenario, our implementation deploys a filter that is mapped
to "/*". The jax-rs filter tries to resolve the request, if it can't it
just forwards it on to the Servlet container to resolve.

Why is this good? Well, there's 2 less things the user has to worry
about (web.xml and an Application class). This is a *good* thing, IMO.


Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat