[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Concerns about JAX-RS spec 326

From: Bill Burke <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:11:41 -0500

On 1/18/2013 5:56 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> On 17/01/13 22:48, Bill Burke wrote:
>> Not sure I understand the issue, but IMO, the TCK should be challenged
>> if a backward compatible method signature change was done. For example,
>> Java 5 had a huge number of backward compatible signature changes
>> because of generics. Java EE should be the same.
> I'll provide some more info. I've upgraded to 2.0 m10 API few months
> ago, and I did not have to change UriBuilder methods accepting Class
> parameters, the parameters were in the form "Class<?>" as far as I recall.
> After upgrading to 2.0 m15 API I'm seeing Eclipse saying CXF
> UriBuilderImpl does not override something, after converting "Class<?>"
> to "Class" it started compiling with me having to also add
> @SuppressWarning due to "Class" being not typed with a type parameter
> which is not cool at all - haven't you seen it yourself in RestEasy ?

I haven't updated Resteasy to latest jax-rs 2.0 API in awhile. I'll be
doing it this week and will have a lot more feedback on spec changes

Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat