[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: New abstract methods in Response

From: Markus KARG <>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:53:58 +0200

I am sorry that I have to object that application classes my not extend
Response anymore, as the WebDAV Support for JAX-RS needs this as an
extension point to provide the possibility to simply write:




So I have to object. It must still be possible for non-JAX-RS-implementors
to extend Response. Or the JAX-RS 2.0 must provide another extension point
for things like WebDAV.





From: Marek Potociar []
Sent: Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2012 14:59
Subject: [jsr339-experts] New abstract methods in Response


Hello experts,


As you know we've added quite a lot of new abstract methods to the Response
API. The approach is however somewhat problematic, because Response javadoc
states that:


An application class can extend this class directly or can use one of the
static methods to create an instance using a ResponseBuilder.


So, adding new abstract methods is strictly speaking a BV incompatible
change. Still, we are not aware of any application developer extending the
Response class. Are you?


We thought we would change the javadoc to not support extending Response
anymore and at the same time implement the newly added methods. Yet, as it
turns out, the only practical default implementation would be to throw an
UnsupportedOpperationException in most cases. Otherwise we would have to
bring in a lot of internal utility classes from Jersey into the API and the
implementation would still only work on the server side. Therefore we feel
that it would be best to keep the new methods abstract and only change the
javadoc to state that:


An application class should not extend this class directly. Response class
is reserved for an extension by a JAX-RS implementation providers. An
application should use one of the static methods to create a Response
instance using a ResponseBuilder.


Again, this is a BW-incompatible change. But we don't know any application
that would be really extending the Response class.


Let us know what you think about the proposal. Given the full context, would
you support it even if it is BW-incompatible change?