Re: Default Priority for built in providers

[John D. Ament]

FWIW, I had assumed I was doing something wrong.  However, I'm just delegating 
down to ClientProviderFactory.setProviders, which does pass in custom as false 
for the built in providers (look at ProviderFactory#L142).  

I'm inclined to align with Romain's thinking, we should just set a high 
priority on the built in providers, to avoid any conflicts.  I already did this 
to register the Json P provider.  This would more easily allow consuming 
frameworks to add their own providers of slightly higher priorities.

John

On 2017-12-16 21:06, Andy McCright <j.andrew.mccri...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> True - we would also need to add default priority to the user-specified
> providers (‘Priorities.USER’).
> 
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 2:08 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Le 16 déc. 2017 20:28, "Andy McCright" <j.andrew.mccri...@gmail.com> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > I don’t have the code in front of me, but I remember that for JAX-RS
> > providers there was a check for a “user”/“custom” boolean - the 
> > built-in
> > providers are false, user providers (regardless of priority) are true.
> > That boolean is checked before the ‘@Priority’ annotation.
> >
> > With the new emphasis on using ‘@Priority’ in the JAX-RS 2.1 spec, we 
> > could
> > probably simplify the code (and possibly speed up the sorting logic) if we
> > got rid of the special booleans and set ‘@Priority(Integer.MAX_VALUE)’ 
> > for
> > all built-in providers.
> >
> >
> > This is not forbidden by the spec so we still need a flag to let the user
> > overriding cxf defaults, no? (Unlikely doesnt mean never, libs will have
> > the same idea i guess, in particular for generic providers)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 12:55 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The JAX-RS spec mandates a certain number of providers by default.  I'm
> > > noticing that when these providers are added, they're added without any
> > > priority.  Andy mentioned to me that they should be added with the
> > priority
> > > of USER + 1, but the actual resolved priority I'm seeing is USER.
> > >
> > > Granted, this is within the proxy client code base.  Is this problem
> > going
> > > to exist as well in the regular clients?  As well as server?
> > >
> > > If so, should we annotate them with USER + 1 to avoid the issue?
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> >
>