[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-6429?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14568985#comment-14568985
]
Sergey Beryozkin commented on CXF-6429:
---------------------------------------
I think the spec leads are correct. Only the top level generic type of MBR (or
MBW) is considered.
I think this issue is similar to CXF-6307 where effectively the pre-packaged
and custom providers get mixed in and the 'custom' status only starts making a
difference if all other conditions are checked and produce equal candidates...
I'll address both issues with a single fix.
> Provider matching when nested generic type
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-6429
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-6429
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JAX-RS
> Affects Versions: 3.0.3
> Environment: Windows
> Reporter: Neal Hu
> Fix For: 3.0.6
>
>
> This is TCK case:
> resource class:
> JAXBElement<String> method(JAXBElement<String> jaxb){
> }
> Provider 1(applicaiton provided provider):
> public class Provider1 implements MessageBodyReader<JAXBElement<String>>,
> MessageBodyWriter<JAXBElement<String>>
> Provider 2: JAXBElementProvider
> @Comsumes("...")
> @Produces("...")
> public class Provider2 implements MessageBodyReader<T>, MessageBodyWriter<T>
> The case intends to match the pre-packaged provider, we challenged the case
> but spec leads rejected the challenge. They mentioned the inside generic type
> <String> should be ignored, and compare the JAXBElement then compare media
> type(provider2 has concrete media type). But we think according to spec
> 4.2.2|#4 provider1 is the nearest class of the resource java type. What's
> your thinking, please share with us.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
