For the sake of being open, this [0] is the partial AAA conversion patch, and [1] is needed to test RESTCONF (RESTCONF currently depends on AAA loading the jersey 1.17 runtime dependencies, which isn't correct and should be fixed anyway).
Regards, Ryan Goulding [0] https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/70795/ [1] https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/70794/ On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Ryan Goulding <ryandgould...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > During the Kernel call this past Tuesday, we talked about attempting an > isolated transition of AAA restful web services from Jersey 1 to Jersey 2. > I attempted this change yesterday, and was able to partially convert (I > just temporarily removed non-essential code that would've required > overhaul). However, when I compiled NETCONF next to test RESTCONF, I > quickly realized that: > > 1) jersey-2.26 won't behave well, since it relies on javax.ws.rs-api 2.1 > and jersey 1.17 relies on javax.ws.rs-api 2.0.1. This leads to a Uses > constraint violation since the dependency is provided via two chains (and > two different versions too!). > > 2) jersey-2.25 won't work for a similar reason. Even though it relies on > the older javax.ws.rs-api 2.0.1 which is currently in place, jersey 1.17 > repackages javax.ws.rs-api. This means that utilizing the off the shelf > javax.ws.rs-api 2.0.1 causes another Uses constraint violation, since the > dependency is provided via upstream properly and jersey 1.17 in a > repackaged form. > > I am starting to really agree with the sentiment that we should just stick > to only one implementation across the board. Additionally, I believe that > isolating this in an API (utility or not) will help the transition since > there will be a single point to toggle the implementations. We may want to > also discuss the drawbacks of jersey 2. Namely, it appears to require a > ton of overhead dependencies and starts a bit slower in newer versions. > Maybe that is fine, but we should fully understand the tradeoffs before > investing more time. We should also settle on what the intended version > should be for jersey 2 if we go that route, since jersey-2.26 is a lot > different than even jersey-2.25. > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > > Ryan >
_______________________________________________ controller-dev mailing list controller-dev@lists.opendaylight.org https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/controller-dev
