Skip to main content

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

  • From: Bill Burke <bburke@...>
  • To: jsr339-experts@...
  • Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?
  • Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:08:22 -0400



On 3/21/12 3:01 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:

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:

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 
deployed.

  How so? Before you had to always specify the mapping, and that will 
continue to take precedence. Can you elaborate?

We assumed everything could be scanned, you could have an empty web.xml file, 
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 
anything.


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 
proposed earlier.


Please tell me why "/*" is too aggressive? its easily handled if your implementation is Filter based.

But, this is orthogonal to the issue of requiring a web.xml or Application class. I do not think either of these artifacts should be required to deploy a JAX-RS service.


Bill

--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com


[jsr339-experts] Default Servlet Mapping?

Santiago Pericas-Geertsen 03/14/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Sergey Beryozkin 03/14/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Marek Potociar 03/14/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Sergey Beryozkin 03/14/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Bill Burke 03/15/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Santiago Pericas-Geertsen 03/15/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Bill Burke 03/15/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Santiago Pericas-Geertsen 03/15/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Bill Burke 03/19/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Marek Potociar 03/21/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Bill Burke 03/21/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Marek Potociar 03/21/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Bill Burke 03/21/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Santiago Pericas-Geertsen 03/22/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Sergey Beryozkin 03/21/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Bill Burke 03/22/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Sergey Beryozkin 03/22/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Santiago Pericas-Geertsen 03/23/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Sergey Beryozkin 03/23/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Marek Potociar 03/15/2012

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?

Bill Burke 03/19/2012
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close