Gili,
both options are already understood by the EG, but the result will not be simply a demoncratic vote, but is highly dependent on issues like backwards compatibility, the JCP bylaws etc. so neither Marek nor I can promise the outcome of the discussion.
-MArkus
Von: cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Oktober 2015 03:43
An: users_at_jersey.java.net
Betreff: [Jersey] Re: Discussion about re-opening a bug: JERSEY-2942
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<mailto: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 @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