Hi Francesco

Yes, option a) is the simplest - c) is always available if you'd like to start customizing the WAE mapping using a standard JAX-RS mechanism.

Thanks, Sergey

On 22/09/16 13:31, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
On 22/09/2016 13:31, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi Francesco,

Happy to be the good one :-)

Of course you are ;-)

Please see comments inline

Same for me.

On 22/09/16 12:07, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Hi all,
during a recent chat I had with the good Sergey (on another topic), I
have found that the JAX-RS's standard WebApplicationException (and child
exceptions) are handled by CXF, according to the specs, via
WebApplicationExceptionMapper [1].

Syncope's RestServiceExceptionMapper, however, contains some code [2] to
manage such exceptions, which is never going to be triggered, at this

Please consider that this affects both 1.2 and 2.0.

IMO, we should either:

 (a) remove [2] and let CXF do its work according to the specs
 (b) set the 'default.wae.mapper.least.specific' (which is false by
default) to delegate WebApplicationException to [2]

I've checked the spec archives - indeed Marek was saying that WAE,
being a special type of exception, should not be given to the mappers
which are typed to handle WAE subclasses (in that case it was a
RuntimeException mapper).
CXF needs to have a WAE mapper to meet various JAX-RS exception
The question is if WAE customization is needed. If no - let CXF do it.
If yes, how a user can customize WAE processing if what CXF provides
OOB does not suit.

(b) would be one option - it is less JAX-RS and more CXF centric
solution - I added that flag because at some point CXF were always
giving the preference to the user-provided providers - so custom
RuntimeException or Exception mappers were able to catch WAE at some
point of time - but later on, after some TCK JIRA issues I ended up
making the code more spec aligned - this caused some side-effects so I
added the flag to keep the user code which depended on the original
selection of the mappers operating.

Yes another option is introduced a mapper specifically typed to handle
WAE - so you'd have an Exception mapper to handle all but WAE
exceptions and a dedicated mapper to handle WAE only - example - it
may extend a CXF mapper and customize few things or do a WAE mapping
from scratch

Ok, that would be option (c) then.

Considering what you say above I would rather go with (a) or (c) - as
(b) appears a bit too "custom".

Any thoughts?



Sergey Beryozkin

Talend Community Coders

Reply via email to