[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Configurable.register() ignores illegal classes

From: Bill Burke <>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 11:17:35 -0400

On 5/9/2013 11:03 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 09/05/13 15:55, Bill Burke wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 10:00 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> Hi Bill
>>> On 09/05/13 14:31, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> The javadoc for Configurable.register(Class) says that the container
>>>> should ignore and warn if a user tries to register an illegal class.
>>>> This is bad behavior, IMO. Instead it should throw an
>>>> IllegalArgumentException
>>> This would break the compatibility, example, JAX-RS 3.0 applications
>>> (custom applications aware of new 3.0 extensions) registering these new
>>> extensions with 2.0 JAX-RS stacks
>> Your statement doesn't make sense. Registering unrecognized component
>> types has nothing to do with compatibility.
> It does. Consider JAX-RS 3.0 introducing NewCallback.class. 3.0
> applications know about it and register NewCallback.class and it just
> works. Now the same application is loaded in the container supporting
> 2.0 and this application suddenly gets IllegalArgumentException, see
> what I mean ?

No I don't. You would hope to get an exception because the application
is expecting you to support NewCallback.

>> Still, ignoring *illegal* classes like non-static ones, is definitely
>> not a compatibility issue.
> Yes, I agree, some tests are coded somewhat unexpectedly, but I'd say it
> just emulates the above case, does it really matter what sort of class
> it is ?

Err...yes... you can't really instantiate non-static inner classes!
Also, the tests assume that it is *OK* to register non-static inner
classes, or classes without a public constructor. Which is wrong...

Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat