On 25/10/12 22:23, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
On 25/10/12 22:16, Marek Potociar wrote:
FWIW, what I recall we did agree upon, which is however not yet in the
spec is that we will make sure that all internal server-side WAEs will
be changed to proper sub-types.
Can you clarify that a bit please ? What would be a difference between
the internal code throwing WebApplicationException(500) and application
code doing the same, as far as mapping either of these instances to a
registered InternalServerErrorException mapper ?
I'd like to get the agreement on this please. What makes me feel that
mapping of WebApplicationException to more specific exception mappers on
the server side should work is because say
WebApplicationException(500) and InternalServerErrorException are meant
to represent exactly the same error condition, so, even though having
the current WebApplicationException handled by
InternalServerErrorException mapper does not work with the current
exception mapping algorithm, the exception has to be made specifically
for WebApplicationException hierarchy - it would just avoid the
"I want to have a generic exception mapping code, implemented with
WebApplicationException mapper, and something more specific done in case
of 500, implemented with InternalServerErrorException mapper".
I know it all can be easily done at the WebApplicationException mapper
level itself, but the introduction of the new exception hierarchy will
inevitably lead to users wishing to write a cleaner base code for
handling all the exceptions without "ifs"
Similarly, we agreed that on client side, proper sub-type will beThat definitely makes sense
thrown based on response error code instead of a generic WAE.
As for your question, I'm not sure it is wise to interfere withThe question is whether some specific treatment is applied to WAE
application-thrown exceptions. (And I still cannot recall what we
instances (irrespectively of where they originated from) or not, I've no
strong opinion, in fact I've already implemented what I thought we
might've agreed :-), but that is not important, I can revert, we just
need to agree
On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:10 PM, Marek
On Oct 25, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin@...>
I would like to clarify the details of the way
WebApplicationExceptions are mapped on the server.
Here is what I recall we talked about the other day.
The code throws "new WebApplicationException(404)", and both
WebApplicationException and NotFoundException mappers are available.
Given NotFoundException is effectively WebApplicationException(404),
NotFoundException mapper is chosen.
Hmm... are you referring to a specific section in the spec? I cannot
recall we agreed on that one, but I may be wrong.
Similarly, if the code throws "new ServerErrorException(500)" and both
ServerErrorException and InternalServerErrorException mappers are
available, InternalServerErrorException gets chosen.
Is it the way it should work ? This obviously is an exception to the
default mapping algorithm, but it appears it is logical given that
the runtime understands the relationship between various API
As I said, I don't recall such agreement, but my memory is not
flawless... If you see it in the spec, then we did agree on that :)
(Which still doesn't mean we didn't if you don't see it there...)
[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: ExceptionMappers and WebApplicationExceptions