websocket-spec
  1. websocket-spec
  2. WEBSOCKET_SPEC-53

Endpoint class qualifiers for @WebSocketEndpoint

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Define whether the endpoint class needs to be public, or final ? Can it be abstract etc ? Also make sure it is conformant with other EE specs.

        Activity

        Hide
        dannycoward added a comment -

        See section 4.1 of the spec which refers additionally to 7.3.1.

        Jitu: Let me know if you think anything is missing, I'm following standard practice with, for example, JAX-RS.

        Show
        dannycoward added a comment - See section 4.1 of the spec which refers additionally to 7.3.1. Jitu: Let me know if you think anything is missing, I'm following standard practice with, for example, JAX-RS.
        Hide
        jitu added a comment -

        JAX-RS resources need not have zero-org constructors. See chapter 3.1.2. But it is odd that it doesn't specify any other requirements.

        From the definition, the following is allowed (but it cannot be instantiated)

        @WebSocketEndpoint
        abstract class A {
        public A() {
        }
        }

        Show
        jitu added a comment - JAX-RS resources need not have zero-org constructors. See chapter 3.1.2. But it is odd that it doesn't specify any other requirements. From the definition, the following is allowed (but it cannot be instantiated) @WebSocketEndpoint abstract class A { public A() { } }
        Hide
        dannycoward added a comment -

        OK. We certainly can't have non-public abstract classes.

        "The class must be public, concrete, and have a public no-args constructor. The class may or may not be final, and may or may not have final methods."

        Let me know if there are other types you think we have to allow for v 1.0 as a priority.

        Show
        dannycoward added a comment - OK. We certainly can't have non-public abstract classes. "The class must be public, concrete, and have a public no-args constructor. The class may or may not be final, and may or may not have final methods." Let me know if there are other types you think we have to allow for v 1.0 as a priority.
        Hide
        dannycoward added a comment -

        What I proposed has been out to the expert group with no comment, so I am closing this out.

        We might look at expanding the possibilities in the next version, but I think this is clear and simple for this version.

        Show
        dannycoward added a comment - What I proposed has been out to the expert group with no comment, so I am closing this out. We might look at expanding the possibilities in the next version, but I think this is clear and simple for this version.

          People

          • Assignee:
            dannycoward
            Reporter:
            jitu
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Due:
              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: