I could imagine that it is pretty much kind of a performance drawback to
ask all Providers for all references each time again, so maybe
single-time registration ("JAXRS: Register me for these interfaces and
all classes annotated with these annotations!") would be more beneficial
than repeated runtime checks. Another solution could be, JAX-RS should
not ask for compatibility with _instances_ but just with _classes_,
since the annotation will not change at runtime. Whether or not the
class has a specific annotation can be checked easily. That would
prevent unnecessary repeated checks.
Regards
Markus
Stephan Koops schrieb:
> Hi Markus,
>
> if you build an MessageBodyWriter for e.g. JAXB, you have to check, if
> the given class is annotated with JAXB annotations.
>
> You could join the mailing list users_at_jsr311.dev.java.net. So you miss
> no email. If we click "reply", than the sender of the message to
> replay is not in the list of the recepients of the new email.
>
> Thanks for give feedback.
>
> best regards
> Stephan
>
> Markus KARG schrieb:
>> Dear JAX-RS Specification Authors,
>>
>> thank you so much for the invention of JAX-RS!
>>
>> Today I came across one thing that I think is not clear in the
>> current draft of the API, and I want to propose an improvement.
>>
>> When implementing my own entity provider, I have to mark it as
>> @Provider, and I have to implement MessageReader and / or
>> MessageWriter. Both, MessageReader and MessageWriter are generic, so
>> I can do "implements MessageReader<Product> to specify that my
>> Provider actually is not "any" MessageReader but can only decode
>> Product instances. So far, so good.
>>
>> But what I do not understand is: For what is the additional
>> "isReadable" / "isWriteable" is needed? Actually, it is obvious that
>> a MessageReader<Product> will only aswer "true" when it got passed a
>> Product instance. In fact, I noticed that my MessageReader<Product>
>> got asked for "isReadable(String)" at Runtime -- what makes no sense
>> in my opinion.
>>
>> Is there something inside of isReadable that I did not see yet? For
>> me, it looks like the "isReadable" / "isWriteable" methods can just
>> be dropped in favour of the generic type provided at "implements
>> MessageReader<T>". Another proposal could be to add the handled types
>> at the @Provider annotation: @Provider(types = {T.class}) could be
>> used as a nice replacement for implementing "isReadable" /
>> "isWriteable".
>>
>> Thanks
>> Markus
>
--
http://www.xing.com/go/invita/58469