Markus,
People have already mentioned that there are ways to implement this
without breaking backwards compatibility, so that is really a non-issue.
That said, I'd be in favor of deprecating the old route matching
(sometime in the future) and making the proposed routing the recommended
default.
Gili
On 2015-10-18 4:39 PM, Markus Karg 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/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
>