On 24/01/13 13:57, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I'm wondering is a good idea at all,
>>
>> On 23/01/13 15:52, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> On 23/01/13 15:38, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>> Hello Experts,
>>>>
>>>> We recently had a discussion with Pete Muir related to name binding in
>>>> JAX-RS and CDI (interceptor binding). As a result, I propose making a
>>>> small change to our spec in order to align our semantics with CDI's.
>>>>
>>>> The proposed change relates to the use of multiple binding
>>>> annotations. There are two sub-cases: (i) multiple binding annotations
>>>> on a resource method or class and (ii) multiple binding annotations on
>>>> the filter or interceptor.
>>>>
>>>> (i)
>>>>
>>>> @A class MyFilter1 ...
>>>> @B class MyFilter2 ...
>>>>
>>>> // Binds both MyFilter1 and MyFilter2
>>>> @A @B public Foo myMethod1() ...
>>>>
>>>> (ii)
>>>>
>>>> @A @B class MyFilter ...
>>>>
>>>> // Binds MyFilter
>>>> @A @B public Foo myMethod2() ...
>>>>
>>>> There are no changes w.r.t. (i), our semantics agreed with CDI's.
>>>> Before this change, we could bind MyFilter to myMethod2() using either
>>>> '_at_A or @B'. In order to align with CDI, we will now require both '_at_A
>>>> and @B' as shown above.
>>>
>>> So effectively specific method name bindings should contain all ones of
>>> the given filter for it to be applicable ?
>>
>> First, I was not correct above, this update would assume that the name bindings of a specific filter would have to contain all the bindings of a specific method for this filter be bind-able to this filter.
>
> No, that's why I listed the two cases above. The relationship filters and methods is asymmetric. A method has to list all the annotations on the filter class, but not the other way around. Please check the updated section in the spec.
>
I think you saying, re (ii), "Before this change, we could bind MyFilter
to myMethod2() using either '_at_A or @B'." confused me - that was
difficult to interpret for me, I'm assuming you were referring that the
following were working before :
@A @B class MyFilter {
}
@A public Foo myMethod2()
but now it will only work as per example only as per example in (ii),
right; If yes then I understand
>>
>> This may make sense in CDI but CDI is at different level than JAX-RS, for example, replacing @A& @B with something more meaningful:
>>
>> @GZIP @LOG public Foo myMethod1()
>> @LOG public Foo myMethod1()
>
> It's hard to comment on this example if you don't show the annotations on the filter classes.
>
Well, I thought of:
@GZIP MyFilter1;
@LOG MyFilter2;
thinking it would prevent myMethod1() from being processed - assuming I
got it with the above conclusion - it actually works.
Still wondering: what exactly is the rationale for aligning with CDI ?
CDI is about managing the injection/etc, JAX-RS is about managing HTTP
service invocations ?
Thanks, Sergey