On Jul 31, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> As Stephan pointed out, the developer wouldn't have to add a
>>>> marker interface as this would already be a superinterface of the
>>>> interfaces it has to implement anyway.
>>>
>>> The RI also uses @Provider for RI specific classes. It enables a
>>> more general way of identification without necessarily hard-coding
>>> specific knowledge of provider-specific interfaces in an
>>> implementation.
>> If these classes are not instances of ExceptionMapper,
>> ContextResolver, MessageBodyReader or MessageBodyWriter this
>> violates the current MUST level requirement of the Javadoc for the
>> Provider Annotation. If they do implement such an interface I don't
>> see the disadvantage of indirectly implementing a provider-
>> interface as well.
>>
>
> Ah good catch, we should change this then!
>
Fixed.
Marc.
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.