On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Didn't I just tell you? Other JavaEE specs (afaik JSF uses "/faces") (and possibly other EE technologies) define their default mappings. Users using combination of these technologies in a single application should not be required to resolve any conflicts caused by the default mappings. Reserving conservatively a single named subtree of the application URI space is a better option ("live and let live") with a positive impact on the end-user convenience.
Although I agree "/*" is convenient for us, we wouldn't win the fair play award with this decision ;)
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree.
+1
-- Santiago