Sounds like that should be a separate module which links the current
impl with the profile, profile and JAX-RS may evolve independently.
Wiring the API lib into 3.2.x can be sensitive, not sure having a mix of
various API flavors will work well...
Sergey
On 04/12/17 01:16, John D. Ament wrote
Le 4 déc. 2017 02:16, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
The problem I see has to do with how the ResponseExceptionMapper works.
JAX-RS doesn't define this provider, however the MP Rest Client does, and
CXF also has this type of provider. The handling of this provider is in
two places, ClientProxyImpl an
The problem I see has to do with how the ResponseExceptionMapper works.
JAX-RS doesn't define this provider, however the MP Rest Client does, and
CXF also has this type of provider. The handling of this provider is in
two places, ClientProxyImpl and ClientProviderFactory. We'd have to create
subl
Hey John,
That would be an interesting feature, useful even beyond just Microprofile
actually (imho) :)
Should we have a dedicated module for it instead of using the client one? We
would
have the dependency to Microprofile REST Client SPI/API there, may be it is
better
not to introduce it into
+1 from me (even if not in CXF community directly)
small request if possible: can mp-config be optional? it is very
located and should be easy to use system properties - or a SPI - as a
fallback if not available right?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-
Hey all
Andy (McCright) and I (as well as some others who don't contribute to CXF)
have been working on another project, specifically around standardizing how
Type Safe rest clients can be built within MIcroProfile. There's two main
aspects to this, as well as some changes potentially required fo