users@jersey.java.net

[Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942

From: Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 23:16:27 +0200

W3C and JCP follow different rules, and 2.0 is not a bugfix of 1.x. So you cannot compare it with the request to "fix JAX-RS 2.0".

-----Original Message-----
From: Martynas Jusevičius [mailto:martynas_at_graphity.org]
Sent: Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015 23:14
To: users_at_jersey.java.net
Subject: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942

For example, both XSLT 2.0 and SPARQL 1.1 specs have introduced changes from previous versions:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#incompatibilities
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#changes-since-pr

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Markus Karg <karg_at_quipsy.de> wrote:
> Unfortunately in the world of backwards compatbility, there is no democracy.
> ;-)
>
>
>
> From: Scott Palmer [mailto:swpalmer_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Samstag, 17. Oktober 2015 23:30
> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
> Subject: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
>
>
>
> 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
>
>