On Jul 17, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/17/2013 10:44 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 4:09 PM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, this should be challenged (if TCK tested) as it was an oversight of the API designer.
>>
>> Why do you think so? The javadoc of this method seems to specifically address this use case - if there is more than one or less than one Path-annotated method with the name in the class, the method is mandated to raise the exception. This is also exactly what JAX-RS 1.1 TCK is testing.
>>
>>> The whole point of these path() methods was so that the uribuilder wouldn't have to know the structure of the URI it was creating.
>>
>> Why do you think that in the current version of the API the UriBuilder would need to know the structure of the URI?
>>
>
> Because if you used path(class, "method") and method only had a @GET annotation, you'd get an exception. The example the user had was:
>
> @Path("/root")
> public class A {
>
> @Path("B")
> B getLocator() {...}
> }
>
> public class B {
>
> @GET
> String doit();
> }
>
> So you want to point to the operation so you can create a link. If doit() had a @Path added to it (or removed for that matter) then the structure of the URI would change. Follow?
Why do you point to the doit() method? The URI definition stops at getLocator().
Marek
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com