Mátyás
feel free to suggest this product-specific solution to the Jersey Team by opening a JIRA ticket containing your proposal:
https://java.net/jira/browse/JERSEY
My personal feeling is that it will get rejected unless you provide a complete patch, as it implies work for Oracle for a feature not needed by that company.
-Markus (JAX-RS Expert Group)
Von: Mátyás Bene [mailto:matyas.bene_at_youstice.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Oktober 2015 08:59
An: Markus KARG; users_at_jersey.java.net
Betreff: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
So how about an "experimental" switch, that would control the method selection.
You stay compliant with the specs (regardless of wether it is indeed broken our not) and the users will get the expected and intuitive behavior.
M.
-------- Original message --------
From: Markus KARG <markus_at_headcrashing.eu<mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu>>
Date: 10/10/2015 13:12 (GMT+01:00)
To: users_at_jersey.java.net<mailto:users_at_jersey.java.net>
Subject: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
What Marek wants to say is, despite how "strange" the behaviour is, as long as it is covered by the spec, we cannot change it, as no spec must break backwards behaviour ever.
From: cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org]
Sent: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015 23:18
To: users_at_jersey.java.net<mailto:users_at_jersey.java.net>
Subject: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
Backwards compatibility is an admirable goal, but are you honestly saying that there are customers relying upon the current (seemingly broken) behavior, and they would be upset if it was changed?
Gili
On 2015-10-09 2:35 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
Markus,
This has been discussed before in EG quite extensively. I can already promise you a big push back. As you should be aware of, we will not be able to introduce changes into JAX-RS that would break backward compatibility of the specification!
Marek Potociar, JAX-RS Specification Lead
On 07 Oct 2015, at 08:30, Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de<mailto:karg_at_quipsy.de>> wrote:
To stop further confusion, I will take this question with me in the JAX-RS Expert Group forum and discuss it with all vendors, and report the result here.
-Markus Karg, JAX-RS Expert Group
Von: cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Oktober 2015 19:55
An: users_at_jersey.java.net<mailto:users_at_jersey.java.net>
Betreff: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
+1
At first glance, this definitely sounds unintuitive.
Gili
On 2015-10-06 3:29 AM, Grzesiek wrote:
Hi all,
A couple of weeks ago I've created a bug ticket JERSEY-2942.<
https://java.net/jira/browse/JERSEY-2942> Unfortunately this ticket has been closed quite fast with the status "Works as designed". But I believe this is a misunderstanding.
In the issue's comments you can read a short discussion on this topic.
Generally, IMO current Jersey behavior is quite ridiculous, because when having exactly matching method to serve a GET /api/users/1request - Jersey chooses method annotated with @DELETE. No other JAX-RS implementations that I'm aware of (Apache CXF and RESTeasy) behaves this way.
But I know I could be wrong here. What do you think?
Any insights are appreciated.
Regards
Greg