Re: JSR311: Limit extensions pre-processing

From: Dhanji R. Prasanna <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:13:05 +1000

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Marc Hadley <> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Having said all that, it is the responsibility of the web framework
>> to map those HTTP semantics onto the actual actions taken to reflect
>> those requests within its internal values and configuration. The best
>> way to do that is to treat each URI as an individual resource first
>> and use the method to select the handler defined by that resource.
>> For example, a specific resource would have specific implementations
>> of GET, PUT, DELETE, ... whereas a generic resource would have a very
>> different implementation of those methods. AFAICT, that should be
>> easy for JSR311 to provide through inheritance and overrides.
>> Given the above I think the only reasonable thing to do right now is to
> remove the automatic URI-based conneg feature. Even limiting it to safe
> operation would violate the mapping of specific resources to generic
> resource classes. If we had a longer than the two weeks remaining before
> proposed final draft we could perhaps investigate other approaches but
> that's not an option for this rev of the specification.

I think we'd be better off doing this; the resources "faking" conneg via URI
has always sit uneasy with me.