[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Should null values in client entity variant overwrite Content-* headers?

From: Bill Burke <>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:47:22 -0500

On 11/11/2013 7:59 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi All,
> On 11/11/13 12:17, Marek Potociar wrote:
>> On 08 Nov 2013, at 22:52, Bill Burke <> wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2013 4:47 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>>> On 08 Nov 2013, at 17:31, Bill Burke <> wrote:
>>>>> Its not covered by the TCK as we pass the TCK :)
>>>>> But, you're changing the behavior of Variant post spec release.
>>>>> Thought that was a no-no?
>>>> Am I? All I am suggesting is that if the Variant field contains
>>>> null, then this null value should not override any existing header
>>>> previously set by the user in the client request. My suggestion is
>>>> based on the fact that relevant javadoc is not strict in that
>>>> respect. Please point me to the part of the spec I'm changing and I
>>>> reconsider (and most likely take back) my proposal.
>>> Didn't you point it out yourself? The Javadoc in any of the Invoker
>>> methods states:
>>> * Any variant-related HTTP headers previously set
>>> (namely {_at_code Content-Type},
>>> * {_at_code Content-Language} and {_at_code
>>> Content-Encoding}) will be overwritten using
>>> * the entity variant information.
>> I am not suggesting to change the javadoc (now) - I am suggesting to
>> change implementation to be in line with my initial intentions when I
>> wrote the javadoc - IIRC, the use case of null Variant field values
>> overriding headers did not occur to me and the note about overwriting
>> was written with non-null fields in mind. What I'm trying to do now is
>> to reach an agreement on a coordinated update in those implementations
>> that take this unfortunate javadoc sentence (too) literally.
>> In any case, if you still object to changing our implementations, I'm
>> (not happy but) fine with keeping things as they are.
> I wonder why would Bill really object given he referred to it as a
> mistake :-) and Marek being open for a fix ? Keeping it as is not a
> major issue from my point of view, I can tweak the CXF code but...

Not against the change. Just thought it was illegal.


Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat