On 22/09/2016 14:48, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
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.
FYI I have opened SYNCOPE-949 for going with (a).
Regards.
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
point.
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
situations.
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?
Regards.
[1]
https://github.com/apache/cxf/blob/3.1.x-fixes/rt/frontend/jaxrs/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/jaxrs/impl/WebApplicationExceptionMapper.java
[2]
https://github.com/apache/syncope/blob/2_0_X/core/rest-cxf/src/main/java/org/apache/syncope/core/rest/cxf/RestServiceExceptionMapper.java#L102-L110
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Member at The Apache Software Foundation
Syncope, Cocoon, Olingo, CXF, OpenJPA, PonyMail
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
