Marc,
I was just thinking that rather than placing the mime configuration in a
JAX-RS configuration file, is there anything that would prohibit JAX-RS from
using the mime type config from the Activation framework? Since JAX-RS
already has a dependency on javax.activation, it may make more sense.
Thoughts?
Ryan-
On 10/3/07, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Marc Hadley wrote:
> >
> > Off the top of my head we could support something like:
> >
> > @UriTemplate("{id}")
> > @HttpMethod
> > @ProduceMime("application/xml")
> > SomeItem getItem(@UriParam("id") String itemId)
> >
> > with a configuration file:
> >
> > <application xmlns="...">
> > <extensions>
> > <extension value="xml" mediaType="application/xml"/>
> > <extension value="json" mediaType="application/json"/>
> > ...
> > </extensions>
> > ...
> > </application>
> >
> > such that
> >
> > GET /1.xml
> > Accept: */*
> >
> > is treated identically to
> >
> > GET /1
> > Accept: application/xml
> >
> > Question: should an extension override an accept or enhance it,
> > e.g. should
> >
> > GET /foo.json
> > Accept: application/xml
> >
> > cause an error (assuming .json was mapped to application/json) or
> > should it effectively add application/json to the Accept value ?
> >
> Answering my own question, I think the only workable approaches are
> to make it an error condition if the extension and accept don't match
> or have the extensions *override* the accept. Consider the following:
>
> @UriTemplate("foo")
> public class Foo {
>
> @ProduceMime("application/xml")
> @HttpMethod(GET)
> Source getXml() {...}
>
> @ProduceMime("application/json")
> @HttpMethod(GET)
> Source getJson() {...}
> }
>
> If the extension adds to the accept then:
>
> GET /foo.json
> Accept: application/xml
>
> would be treated like:
>
> GET /foo.json
> Accept: application/xml, application/json
>
> and the runtime would still need to decide which of the acceptable
> formats to return. If it picked XML then the response would be
> counter intuitive.
>
> If instead the extension overrides the accept then the request would
> be treated like
>
> GET /foo.json
> Accept: application/json
>
> and would proceed as expected.
>
> Following the "be liberal in what you accept and strict in what you
> produce" approach I think we should go with the override rather than
> making it an error condition but I'm open to counter arguments.
>
> Marc.
>
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
>
>
--
Ryan J. McDonough
http://www.damnhandy.com