[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Not a big fan of @NameBinding, remove it?

From: Sergey Beryozkin <>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:27:48 +0000

On 20/02/13 15:15, Bill Burke wrote:
> Bloating the spec for very narrow use cases is generally not a good
> idea, but whatever Marek. I can't wait to not have to argue with you
> anymore... :) I won't submit any comments anymore since, it seems, the
> spec is closed. You might as well just dissolve the expert group.
> And I don't apologize at all for submitting a flurry of minor
> suggestions and removal requests. I've been spending the past year
> implementing JAX-RS 2.0, now I'm focused on documenting it (through my
> book). You see things very differently when writing about an API.
Should we start celebrating the arrival of PFD instead :-) ? The fact
NameBinding can not handle MaxAge(N) is definitely a minor issue IMHO

Cheers, Sergey

> On 2/20/2013 8:50 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>> I can only repeat myself. We're past the point of removing and adding
>> pieces of API just because you are "not a big fan" of them. This API
>> has been discussed at length and often offers a simple and nice way
>> for binding providers.
>> Marek
>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:03 AM, Bill Burke <> wrote:
>>> If your annotation has a qualifier, then @NameBinding really isn't a
>>> very efficient pattern to implement a filter or interceptor. For
>>> example, let's say you had a @MaxAge annotation that triggered adding
>>> a Cache-Control header with a qualified max-age:
>>> @MaxAge(100)
>>> @GET
>>> public String get() {...}
>>> The @NameBinding filter would have to inject ResourceInfo and look up
>>> the @MaxAge annotation each and ever request to set the value. It is
>>> much better to implement a DynamicFeature in this case so you can
>>> pre-initialize the filter with the annotation's value.
>>> --
>>> Bill Burke
>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat