Two against one. Fix the spec :-)
Scott
> On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de> wrote:
>
> The JAX-RS Expert Group discussed the situation and here is the preliminary result:
> * What Jersey does is compliant with the JAX-RS specification, but non-intuitive.
> * What CXF and RestEasy do violates the JAX-RS specification formally, but is intuitive.
> * The Expert Group currently discusses possible solutions.
>
> -Markus
>
> From: Markus Karg
> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 08:30
> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
> Subject: AW: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
>
> 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
> 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. 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 @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
>