Well, there's a huge number of tests that fail in the TCK because of the
new matching algorithm if implemented as-is:
The whole set of:
com.sun.ts.tests.jaxrs.ee.rs.pathparam.locator and .sub tests
See my description here if you're interested:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CTS-81
This is the only part of the specification that is total crap, IMO. The
algorithm is complex and leaves little room for optimization or
interpretation, neither the TCK nor Jersey got it right either which
just adds fuel to the fire. I had no problems passing the TCK prior to
2.0 and now, code that is stable and 4+ years old needs to be changed.
On 5/19/2013 9:53 AM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> Let us focus on what the JAX-RS 1.1 spec states before we discuss the best way to handle your example. Please run the JAX-RS 1.1 algorithm on your example and find the values for E, R_match and M in step 2. I'd like to understand why it works in your analysis.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Santiago
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Santiago
>> On 17/05/13 18:15, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>> Bill, Sergey,
>>>
>>> I can see the issue that you're reporting. However, and I don't have a copy of the old spec handy, I believe HTTP method filtering was also done in step 3 before, so why did it work before?
>>>
>>> The general idea of the algorithm has always been to avoid backtracking; I think it would be possible to construct a more involved example in which you'd need to backtrack more than one step to match something.
>>>
>>> Could it be that your implementation always supported backtracking but the TCKs didn't test that before?
>>>
>> No, we've never supported back-tracking. And as I tried to clarify, JAX-RS 1.1 did not even require it and CXF simply followed it to the letter.
>>
>> When we have
>>
>> @Path("/")
>> public class Resource {
>> @POST
>> @Path("sub")
>> public void post();
>>
>> @Path("{id}")
>> public Resource locator() {
>> }
>>
>> @GET
>> public void get();
>> }
>>
>> and
>>
>> GET /sub
>>
>> returning 404 is simply not the option IMHO.
>>
>> JAX-RS 1.1 adds two candidates, post() & locator() and the text clearly makes locator() win and hence get() selected. No backtracking, simple comparison or check: post() has a non-matching method, it is out
>>
>> Likewise if we have
>>
>> @Path("/")
>> public class Resource {
>> @GET
>> @Path("{id}")
>> public void get();
>>
>> @Path("{id}")
>> public Resource locator() {
>> }
>>
>> @GET
>> public void getSub();
>> }
>>
>> we have the same 2 candidates, but get() wins because locator() loses due to the text preferring Tmethod to Tlocator.
>>
>> Whichever way you go, there's absolutely no need for the backtracking. The only case where backtracking might be required id when two locators have exactly the same Path, but 2.0 correctly recommends to report an error in this case.
>>
>> FYI, in 1.1, originally sublocators were winning in the latter case, and I recall myself when the decision was made to make sure that get() in the 2nd example wins, but the bottom line is that both get() and locator() has always been two candidates to be selected from.
>>
>> We have tests on the above and the documentation on this case.
>> It is backward-incompatible spec change, please check 1.1 text.
>>
>> We have to keep 1.1 behavior, we can not break the existing code with 2.0
>>
>> Thanks, Sergey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -- Santiago
>>>
>>> On May 17, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 4:35 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill
>>>>> On 17/05/13 04:41, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>> Let me give you an example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given this request:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OPTIONS /sub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will match:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Path("/")
>>>>>> class Resource {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Path("{id}")
>>>>>> public Locator locator() { return new Locator();}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> class Locator {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @OPTIONS
>>>>>> public String options() { return "OK"; }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this won't match:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Path("/")
>>>>>> class Resource {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @GET
>>>>>> @Path("sub")
>>>>>> public String get() { return "OK"; }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Path("{id}")
>>>>>> public Locator locator() { return new Locator();}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me it will too. @GET method is selected only if no @OPTIONS is
>>>>> available and in this case it is available.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Check out the spec. It won't match because "sub" is matched in 2(h). 2(h) says that if there are any non-locator matches, then go to 3, then 3(a) will abort the request.
>>>>
>>>> I ran into this very problem when testing against the TCK. The TCK assumes there is no loopback to Locators and one of the tests fails. I'm able to fix this problem quite easily, but, I have some users that reported this as a "bug". They will now "regress".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bill Burke
>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergey Beryozkin
>>
>> Talend Community Coders
>> http://coders.talend.com/
>>
>> Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
>
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com