On 23/03/12 14:24, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Bill Burke 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Without Application, what would be the most portable way to deploy a
>>> simple JAX-RS service across multiple JAX-RS stacks ? Sorry may be this
>>> question is also orthogonal :-),
>>>
>>
>> Not sure I understand you. just put a resource class in /WEB-INF/classes and have the scanner discover it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. YOu want a full Java EE container to have value-add. One of the value adds is scanning.
>
> It depends exactly what's covered by "portability". Yes, the resources can be discovered via class scanning, which is great; however, the _location_ of those resources depends on the servlet mapping which is coming either from the web.xml or @ApplicationPath according to JAX-RS 1.X.
>
> The point of this thread was to define a default servlet mapping so the location (at least after the application context root) is also portable in the absence of a web.xml and @ApplicationPath. I have a sense that most JAX-RS app developers want to neither write a web.xml nor provide an application subclass with a @ApplicationPath. Hence, the usefulness of a default mapping.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
Sure it does. As I said earlier I was fine with the idea of the default
mapping. In my own experience I see users often preferring the
application-specific/unique context names, but indeed, having some
default mapping is OK
Sergey
> -- Santiago
>
>
>
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com