On Mar 19, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
On 3/15/12 4:15 PM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
On Mar 15, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
On 3/15/12 3:54 PM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
We assumed everything could be scanned, you could have an empty web.xml file,
On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
I would say do nothing because it would break existing 1.1 applications when
How so? Before you had to always specify the mapping, and that will
continue to take precedence. Can you elaborate?
and no Application class. This was an incorrect assumption? I know a lot of
people use us in this manner. Maybe I just interpreted the 1.1 spec wrong?
Class scanning and servlet mapping are orthogonal. The only way you can get the
servlet mapping in 1.1 is from (i) a web.xml or (ii) the @ApplicationPath annotation on
an Application subclass AFAICT, with (i) overriding (ii) if both are present. For the
other cases, 1.1 states that "the application MUST be packaged with a web.xml that
specifies a servlet mapping for the added servlet".
Perhaps you're already using a default in Resteasy?
Well, then the spec should allow the case for *no* Application class and no web.xml
listing. The default mapping should be "/*" and should work with static
content too. This way its very simple for users and no thought has to be put into
I think so far we can all agree, that a default mapping is good. I want to however point out that
suggested "/*" as a default mapping is too aggressive in connection with any other
technology that uses some default mapping as well (e.g. JSF). For that reason, I suggest to
choose a named default mapping directly under the root path e.g. the "/webapi/*" as
[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?