RE: JSR311: Response isn't adequate

From: Larry Cable <>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:26:10 -0800

I agree with Bill, both Servlet *and* this JSR require a mechanism to allow streaming/chunking to the
response output stream ... best to fix this in 1.0 as fixing it in 3.0 (ala Servlet) is a bit like making
unthreaded, non reentrant code in the C locale, MT-hot and I18N-ized at the same time!


- Larry

From: Bill Burke
Sent: Fri 2/29/2008 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: JSR311: Response isn't adequate

Marc Hadley wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>> And I've already told you that this just not cut it for specific use
>> cases (Blobs). It is going to make EJB integration(really anybody
>> that uses JTA) unusable in those cases. I don't think Lobs are an
>> unreasonable use case to support.
>>> - In a servlet container you can inject HttpServletResponse and use
>>> the OutputStream from that but you'll have to set any headers
>>> yourself before you commence writing.
>> So, anything that doesn't fit the @Provider model, we'll have to
>> escape to Servlet API or worse, have our own vendor specific extension
>> for? Hmmmm...All because we can't inject an OutputStream.
> I'm not I understand why blobs don't fit the provider model ? If the
> provider runs in the same connection+transaction scope as the resource
> method and can be injected with all the same stuff what doesn't work ?
> Sorry if I'm being dense here.

That's the thing, the provider has to run in the same transaction scope
as the resource. Every container I know that does transactions usually
ends the transaction before a response is sent back to the client.
(a.k.a EJB TransAttribute.REQUIRED). You basically wouldn't be able to
use container managed transactions. Are you following me? I don't know
if I'm being clear.

> Injecting an OutputStream is only half the work, if you still want to be
> able to use Response to specify headers then you'd either have to call
> that first and somehow pass that to the runtime then start writing to
> the output stream or we'd have to buffer the output waiting for the
> method to complete and return the response. Again, sorry if I missed
> something, I'm still catching up from a few days vacation.

Don't want the buffering. That could be done in the current model. I
want the ability to stream LOBs and again, some DBs require a connection
to be open while you're reading a LOB.

Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.