@Markus and @Marek
> as no spec must break backwards behaviour ever
Sorry, I understand you but I cannot agree. We are just humans, and every
human makes mistakes - also those who are involved in creating the
specification.
Even core JDK is not so strict in the backward compatibility as you guys,
at Jersey. Do you remember this java 1.7 item Updated sort behavior for
Arrays and Collections
<
http://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6804124>? It affected
a such core functionality like behaviour of the "Collections.sort" method.
And since the java 1.7 every program that relied on that broken behaviour
stopped to work and was throwing an IllegalArgumentException.
If the previous behavior is desired, you can use the new system property:
"-Djava.util.Arrays.useLegacyMergeSort".
Current unintuitive/ strange/ buggy (choose whatever you want) behaviour in
Jersey should definitely be changed.
Greg
2015-10-12 10:38 GMT+02:00 Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de>:
> 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>
>
> Date: 10/10/2015 13:12 (GMT+01:00)
>
> To: 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 <cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org>]
> *Sent:* Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015 23:18
> *To:* 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> 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 <cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org>]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 6. Oktober 2015 19:55
> *An:* 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/1*request -
> Jersey chooses method annotated with *_at_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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>