On 29/11/11 10:13, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi
On 29/11/11 01:19, douglassparker wrote:
If a server method is annotated with @Produces(
{MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON,
MediaType.APPLICATION_XML} ) and the client does not provide an Accept
Header, my understanding is that the response MIME type shoul
ing Accept type, if a client does not mind then given that the
server says it can serve either JSON or XML, then it means both formats
are perfectly fine in case of a missing Accept
Sergey
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Why-is-the-default-accept-for-Web
like
this.) But it doesn't. It defaults to XML. Isn't this a violation of the
spec?
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Why-is-the-default-accept-for-WebClient-text-xml-tp5013707p5030783.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
On 23/11/11 03:10, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi Benson
On 22/11/11 14:40, Benson Margulies wrote:
Does the standard demand that the default setting of accept for
WebClient be text/xml? This seems completely arbitrary to me. Why not
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi Benson
>
> On 22/11/11 14:40, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> Does the standard demand that the default setting of accept for
>> WebClient be text/xml? This seems completely arbitrary to me. Why not
>> */*?
>
> I though it would more lik
Hi Benson
On 22/11/11 14:40, Benson Margulies wrote:
Does the standard demand that the default setting of accept for
WebClient be text/xml? This seems completely arbitrary to me. Why not
*/*?
I though it would more likely lead to some unexpected responses, say
if you have the server code like
Does the standard demand that the default setting of accept for
WebClient be text/xml? This seems completely arbitrary to me. Why not
*/*?
