Which default providers are you referring to ?
If it is MBR or MBW then their priority is implicit, based on the spec
text re how to sort media types, etc.
Sergey
On 17/12/17 14:42, John D. Ament wrote:
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 “userâ€/“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
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
