[GitHub] sberyozkin commented on issue #379: [CXF-7638] Only register provider if it implements specified contracts

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] sberyozkin commented on issue #379: [CXF-7638] Only register provider if it implements specified contracts

GitBox
sberyozkin commented on issue #379: [CXF-7638] Only register provider if it implements specified contracts
URL: https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/379#issuecomment-364092698
 
 
   OK, I've debugged the test and recall a bit better now what I was trying to do with these supported types. FYI, I found implementing all of these Configuration/Configurable very challenging, I recall typing and thinking I was not really sure if I was on the wrong or right path :-) as the original docs were quite compact, and the interpretation of some signatures can vary even today.
   My own initial understanding was that it was primarily about supporting new filters/interceptors, given that in 2.0 (and in 2.1 for the most non-filter/non-interceptor interfaces) no priorities existed for MBR/MBW (and today for ex for ExceptionMapper or ParamConverterProvider) while many register methods accept the priorities or have the default priorities which have no any processing reqs for the last 2 intterfaces and in 2.0 - for MBR/MBW as well.  Hence those supported types lists (for client/server) only included the new 2.0 filter/interceptors and only later I started adding the support for the wider set of standard types.
   
   But  anyway, the patch looks fine, except that the supported contracts still need to be passed in, this is to protect Server-side Configuration from accepting ClientRequest/ResponseFilter and the client side Configuration - from ContainerRequest/ResponseFilter.   These supported types lists may need to be expanded for the client and server (to include all other standard types which make sense on the client and the server) such that a provider can not be registered under SomeNonJaxrsContract - which should be rejected
   
   Thanks    

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


With regards,
Apache Git Services