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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 16 déc. 2017 20:28, "Andy McCright" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > > >
