Can you provide an example of the problem. I'm not sure I understand the issue. Application name-bindings are just provider bindings applied to the Application class. That makes them effectively global. Nothing more, nothing less. IOW, those are still the same provider name-bindings you would apply to a resource or its methods.
Marek
On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:38 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
> Application name-bindings do apply to providers this Application provides (filters, interceptors).
>
> What is the rule when some of the providers have their own name-bindings ? Do they end up with their own name-bindings + those belonging to Application ?
>
> I think it might be better if provider-specific name-bindings were preferred in such cases - it would be similar to the way resource-specific @Produces/_at_Consumes take precedence over root resource annotations
>
> Thanks, Sergey