2009/1/28 Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_sun.com>:
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 10:38 AM, James Strachan wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/28 Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_sun.com>:
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:47 AM, James Strachan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2009/1/27 James Strachan <james.strachan_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Awesome stuff Paul, many thanks! Taking it for a spin now...
>>>>
>>>> It works like a charm! Great stuff Paul!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great. I am still not sure about the prioritization aspect of media types
>>> declared with @ImplicitProduces, it seems a hack that might be hard to
>>> remove when priorities are supported, or not be of the desirable behavior
>>> for some. It would be more consistent if @ImplicitProduces has the same
>>> order semantics as @Produces.
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>> I wonder if we could just add support for priorities in the MIME types
>> for now?
>
> For @Produces that will require more work :-) I do not have time to
> investigate and implement in time for the 1.0.2 release with all the other
> things that need to be done.
OK :)
Would you have time to just support the priorities/quality for
@ImplicitProduces for 1.02? Am thinking that's slightly preferable as
its a clean longer term solution. Though a global priority setting
would be fine too. So long as this issue is resolved for end users I
don't mind too much how the implementation works really :)
>>> Thus I think instead we should support a application request filter that
>>> looks at the user-agent header and accept header and then modifies the
>>> latter. Then that filter can be included as part of the application. IMHO
>>> that would be a better way to work around the odd Safari accept header.
>>> What
>>> do you think?
>>
>> Anyone making a web application which serves up HTML and XML/JSON from
>> the same set of resources is gonna hit this; so I'd rather avoid if we
>> can end users having to write a custom filter. I'd rather it be some
>> flag we turn on somewhere (which could enable a filter shipped with
>> Jersey). Indeed I'd rather the flag be on by default (with suitable
>> documentation in the Implicit/Explicit Views documentation) as any
>> user serving HTML and XML/JSON is gonna hit this or get it as a bug
>> report if they don't test with safari/iphone etc.
>
> I agree. I was not suggesting that this would be left to Jersey users to
> develop.
Sorry for the misunderstanding; not had enough coffee yet!
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/