In fact it is not the Jersey team only… We have to change the JAX-RS 2.1 spec to make it mandatory (either thread-safe or not), as programs written to the Client API must work with _any_ implementation of the JAX-RS standard. I will pick up this in the EG so we can hopefully find a safe phrasing for 2.1.
Von: cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014 15:04
An: users_at_jersey.java.net
Betreff: [Jersey] Re: Pool for javax.ws.rs.client.Client objects?
I'm saying that the Jersey team needs to document thread-safety if it exist (and yes, I believe this code really is thread-safe).
Gili
On 28/10/2014 9:53 AM, Rodrigo Uchôa wrote:
So we can make no assumptions about the thread-safety of the Client class? Back to square one then. Pooling is the right approach.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:44 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org<mailto:cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
The exact opposite is true.
The Javadoc/specification is a contract. Anything that is not explicitly listed is an implementation detail that may change at any time.
Gili
On 28/10/2014 8:49 AM, Markus Karg wrote:
Don’t understand your critics. Isn’t it typical in all JavaDocs to only warn about MISSING thread-safety?
Von: Rodrigo Uchôa [mailto:rodrigo.uchoa_at_gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014 13:47
An: users_at_jersey.java.net<mailto:users_at_jersey.java.net>
Betreff: [Jersey] Re: Pool for javax.ws.rs.client.Client objects?
I just find it really weird that if Client objects should be implemented in a thread-safe way, this is not explicit in the javadocs. :) But it does make things a lot easier if it is.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de<mailto:karg_at_quipsy.de>> wrote:
FYI: Reuse of objects can also be done on the level of targets and invocation templates, a.k.a. Invocation class: You can invoke it several times using different values (see
http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/client/Invocation.html#property(java.lang.String, java.lang.Object)<
http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/client/Invocation.html#property%28java.lang.String,%20java.lang.Object%29> and
http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/client/Invocation.html#invoke(java.lang.Class)<
http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/client/Invocation.html#invoke%28java.lang.Class%29>).
Von: Colin Vipurs [mailto:zodiaczx6_at_gmail.com<mailto:zodiaczx6_at_gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014 10:44
An: users_at_jersey.java.net<mailto:users_at_jersey.java.net>
Betreff: [Jersey] Re: Pool for javax.ws.rs.client.Client objects?
This is exactly what we do across all our services. You should notice quite the performance improvement switching to this as well
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de<mailto:karg_at_quipsy.de>> wrote:
Did you find any official documentation which says that you must not use one single client concurrently by different threads? If not, why not just using a single instance?
Von: Rodrigo Uchôa [mailto:rodrigo.uchoa_at_gmail.com<mailto:rodrigo.uchoa_at_gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014 00:12
An: users_at_jersey.java.net<mailto:users_at_jersey.java.net>
Betreff: [Jersey] Pool for javax.ws.rs.client.Client objects?
Hi guys!
I have a client web application that uses the Client API to make REST calls to a REST business layer.
The javax.ws.rs.client.Client docs clearly states that Client objects are expensive to create and dispose, and only a small number of them should be created, which makes me think they should be pooled somehow.
Our initial thought was to instantiate and then close every Client object we use, making code like this:
public void doSomething() {
Client client = ClientBuilder.newClient();
//do a bunch of stuff here
client.close();
}
Every method that needs to invoke REST services are coded like the example above. That means every time a client web request comes in, a new Client object is created and then closed. The exact opposite of what the docs advises us to do.
How should we implement a pool of Client objects in this scenario? Is there a common solution?
Regards,
Rodrigo Uchoa.
--
Maybe she awoke to see the roommate's boyfriend swinging from the chandelier wearing a boar's head.
Something which you, I, and everyone else would call "Tuesday", of course.