[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13632223#comment-13632223
]
Sergey Beryozkin edited comment on CXF-4959 at 4/15/13 9:35 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, I've decided to make it optional at the moment. We can not code
specifically around /\*+json and /json, and simply making "/\*+a" subtype
compatible with "/a" produces unexpected results, specifically,
application/xhtml+xml becomes compatible with application/xml and I think it is
not quite right.
For the moment you can make such compatibility checks work by setting a
"partial.hierarchical.media.subtype.check" contextual property to 'true' for a
given endpoint. I'll merge to 2.7.x asap.
Also, JAX-RS 2.1 will also likely address this issue
was (Author: sergey_beryozkin):
FYI, I've decided to make it optional at the moment. We can not code
specifically around /*+json and /json, and simply making "/*+a" subtype
compatible with "/a" produces unexpected results, specifically,
application/xhtml+xml becomes compatible with application/xml and I think it is
not quite right.
For the moment you can make such compatibility checks work by setting a
"partial.hierarchical.media.subtype.check" contextual property to 'true' for a
given endpoint. I'll merge to 2.7.x asap.
> Support hierarchical mimetypes
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-4959
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4959
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: JAX-RS
> Affects Versions: 2.7.4
> Reporter: Todd Orr
>
> I am attempting to provide a custom hypermedia model through the mimetype
> returned in a response. I would like to ensure that the Content-Type header
> reflects this while serializing the data according to the best fit message
> body writer. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. I have tried two approaches:
> 1. Annotated the service method with @Produces("application/my-type+json")
> 2. Used a ContainerResponseFilter to set the Content-Type header according to
> the data type being returned (effectively the same goal as #1)
> The result of either approach is not good, but they fail differently.
> 1. Results in a 404 as the client is sending an accept for application/json
> 2. The serialization fails with a no message body writer found error
> I'd expect both of these approaches to work as follows:
> 1. CXF determines the best match given the available producers. For example,
> application/my-type+json is clearly applicable under application/json, so it
> should match application/json request Accept headers as well as more specific
> Accept values.
> 2. The message body writer for application/json should apply to
> application/my-type+json since the latter is clearly applicable under
> application/json.
> I believe the argument against this request would include a plea for forcing
> the client to specify exactly what it wants returned and having the server
> rigidly behave. However, I think this falls under the purview of the
> Robustness Principle (Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what
> you accept). It would be a much better experience to implement something akin
> to what I have described.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
