Jo Størset wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just wanted to hear if you're going to keep this behaviour in jersey?
>
Yes. I will include the relevant methods in the ResourceConfig class. It
will be implemented as a Jersey filter such that the extensions will be
stripped from the URI before being processed. Thus the extensions will
not be visible to the application when building URIs.
Paul.
> For browser related use cases this optional feature is helpful to the
> developer, and I don't see the argument that it is in any way unrestful.
> It is after all only a way to help implement a common use case, when
> needed.
>
> I understand the need to take it out of the spec for time constraints
> and the need to be 100% on the way it's implemented. But it would be
> nice to have it or something similar in jersey. I mean, it's already
> been implemented?
>
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109