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:
We assumed everything could be scanned, you could have an empty
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?
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.
[jsr339-experts] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?
[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Default Servlet Mapping?