[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Re: HEADS-UP: Common configuration proposal

From: Bill Burke <>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:16:59 -0400

Perchance did you finish the AsyncResponse stuff that was talked about?

On 8/1/12 4:12 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
> Those 2 methods will be actually added extra (contrary to the proposal
> text); The purpose is to be able to narrow down the contracts registered
> by the provider. E.g. the provider class implements reader and writer
> interceptor, but you only want to register it as a reader interceptor,
> etc. The reason for adding those methods as extra overloads to their
> single-parameter versions is to avoid the nasty compiler warnings when
> the varargs are completely omitted.
> Btw. I have just pushed the proposed code to <>
> so that you can review:
> Marek
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:30 PM, Bill Burke <
> <>> wrote:
>> I really like this and think it should be included in PR.
>> * Are you sure a list of contracts are needed to pass to register()
>> method? instanceof and Class.isAssignableFrom() can figure this out.
>> On 8/1/12 10:08 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>> Hello experts,
>>> In an attempt to address multiple configuration-related issues in JAX-RS
>>> Jira, I'd like to propose a following update to the API:
>>> Since we want to release a PR version of the API early next week, please
>>> provide your feedback by tomorrow CoB, if possible. I'd like to include
>>> the change in the PR release so that we can avoid such relatively
>>> significant API disruption after the JAX-RS API 2.0-pr is released (if
>>> possible).
>>> I apologise for a last minute notice. Of course, if you are not able to
>>> review the proposal in the given short time-frame, we can incorporate
>>> your feedback even after the PR is released.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marek
>> --
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat

Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat