> On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Santiago
>
> I can not comment on the former as we only have an issue reported by a user and hence I can not give a 100% confirmation, but in a nutshell, it is both.
>
> It is both, but ultimately it is important that the spec is clear on the use of 'q' and 'qs'. Otherwise the users will start misusing the *response* content-negotiation primitives for affecting the resource method selection using (Content-Type + @Consumes) as opposed to (Accept + @Produces).
>
> Obviously, if the users start using ';qs' on Consumes then they will want to use 'q' on Content-Type but
>
> Content-Type: text/bar;q=0.7
>
> does not work in the HTTP land...
>
> Technically it is easy enough to update the code to do the same process for (Content-Type + @Consumes) where 'q' and 'qs' are checked. But IMHO the spec should do the right HTTP-centric fix.
Ok, I will follow up with the TCK team on the test issue.
As for the spec, I never felt it was confusing on the use of q and qs. Perhaps you can suggest some text to be added to clarify this?
— Santiago
> On 20/04/15 13:52, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>> Hi Sergey,
>>
>> So is this about the TCK test challenge or are you suggesting a change in the spec to avoid confusion (or both)?
>>
>> — Santiago
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Santiago
>>>
>>> I'm resurrecting this thread on a 370-experts list as we've had a bug reported against CXF where a test expects, given two resource method candidates, selected the one which has a higher 'qs' on a Consumes media type.
>>>
>>> IMHO this really needs to be fixed in 370 to avoid the misuse of 'qs'.
>>>
>>> Would you be Ok with me opening a JIRA issue ?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Sergey
>>>
>>> On 15/05/13 14:40, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right. It was not the intention to use qs in @Consumes. We're are looking into it and we'll get back to you.
>>>>
>>>> -- Santiago
>>>>
>>>> On May 15, 2013, at 5:22 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Santiago, All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to briefly get back to this thread, see comments in the end of the message
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/04/13 14:46, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/04/13 14:31, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin_at_talend.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 08/04/13 17:06, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Santiago, All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have some difficult time reading the section 3.7.2, specifically, the
>>>>>>>>> 3.7.2/3/b part, it starts from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "If after filtering the set M has more than one element, sort it in
>>>>>>>>> descending order as follows. Let
>>>>>>>>> a client media type be of the form n/m;q=v1 , a server media type be of
>>>>>>>>> the form n/m;qs=v2 and
>>>>>>>>> a combined media type of the form n/m;q=v1 ;qs=v2 ;d=v3 , where the
>>>>>>>>> distance factor d is defined
>>>>>>>>> below."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and then it mentions, after specifying the terms:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Given these definitions, we can now sort M in descending order
>>>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>>>> ≥ as follows7 :
>>>>>>>>> • Let t be the request content type and CM a resource method’s
>>>>>>>>> @Consumes
>>>>>>>>> set of server
>>>>>>>>> media types, we use the media type max≥ {S(t, c) | (t, c) ∈ {t} × CM }
>>>>>>>>> as primary key.
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, given that a 'qs' factor comes into consideration only when a
>>>>>>>>> client Accept values are checked against @Produces values, why have we
>>>>>>>>> defined a combined media type in (1) as having 'qs' and then presumably
>>>>>>>>> using that combined media types in (2), when referring to @Consumes ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think I understand why it is written this way, simply to have a
>>>>>>>> uniform algorithm text working for both @Consumes and @Produces, with
>>>>>>>> the Content-Type - @Consumes selection working with both 'q' and 'qs'
>>>>>>>> set to 1.0 by default.
>>>>>>>> My concern that some users may get an impression that for example
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/xml;q=0.8
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> can affect the selection of the underlying resource method which IMHO
>>>>>>>> does not make sense, because if it will affect then the client must
>>>>>>>> be knowing too much about the implementation details of the server.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you share this concern then I can create an ice-box issue to get
>>>>>>>> some clarifications applied to the selection algo text in 3.7.2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Implementations aren't required to implement the algorithm in the
>>>>>>> same manner, they just need to produce the same results. I'm fine with
>>>>>>> adding a sentence about quality factors in content types (a new JIRA),
>>>>>>> but I think it's pretty obvious that's not the intended use of q.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so 'q' is obviously not for the use with Content-Type.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please confirm 'qs' is not for the use with @Consumes values ?
>>>>> I'm seeing a test asserting that adding 'qs' to @Consumes values affects the selection of the methods.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 'q' & 'qs' can work in tandem in order to 1) get the right response type and 2) possibly affect the selection of the method
>>>>>
>>>>> Using 'qs' in @Consumes simply as a means to get a method selected is feasible but I wonder if it was actually intended (referring here to the spec text)
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>>>>
>>>>> @Consumes("text/*") m1()
>>>>> @Consumes("text/plain;qs=0.8") m2()
>>>>>
>>>>> m1 wins apparently. In fact m2() can never even be selected if we take into the consideration that 'q' is not supposed to be used with Content-Type.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do we allow for the use of 'qs' on @Consumes. IMHO it has to be defaulted to 1.0 no matter what custom values are, thoughts, comments ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Sergey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>