All,
Markus is correct. There are lot of situations in standards work that backward compatibility should be broken but cannot. The matching algorithm in JAX-RS, with all its good and bad parts, has been around for many years and lots of existing applications rely on it. Making a non-compatible change may cause some applications to break.
As Marek also pointed out, this has already been discussed at the EG level and rejected for the same reason.
— Santiago
> On Oct 12, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de> wrote:
>
> Graham,
>
> thank you for your kind input, but see, pointing out that others did bad things in the past should not be an excuse to also do bad things.
>
> As a community representative I really do share your view and I hate that point of the spec as you do, really. But I also have in mind all those application vendors that follow the specification as-is (as weird and as counterintuitive as it is). If we change the spec, ALL those applications will definitively fail. If we keep the spec as-is, only SOME applications will fail – particularly those not tested against the RI (hence: not developed against the spec but against a particular product that violates the spec). As the idea of an RI definitively is (among others) to point out such application design “faults”, the latter is the smaller group, unfortunately.
>
> So I need to say that I do not see a real chance for a specification change (again, feel free to open a Jersey JIRA ticket for a product-specific change). If we love it or not, for the sake of backwards compatibility (one of Java’s holy grails) we MUST NOT touch that part of the spec.
>
> -Markus
>
>
> Von: Graham Leggett [mailto:minfrin_at_sharp.fm]
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Oktober 2015 13:56
> An: users_at_jersey.java.net
> Betreff: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
>
> On 12 Oct 2015, at 1:48 PM, Grzesiek <gregory.d3_at_gmail.com <mailto:gregory.d3_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> as no spec must break backwards behaviour ever
>
>
> Current unintuitive/ strange/ buggy (choose whatever you want) behaviour in Jersey should definitely be changed.
>
> Certainly, it must be changed - without breaking backwards compatibility.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> —