Hi team,
We have a double 'priority' param that can be passed to some of the
ProvidersRegistry.addProvider methods. This is a non-spec key, thus a WINK
feature. Given that, I've been treating it as an "override" rather than a
"tie-breaker" when sorting Provider priority. For example, if a user
specifies ContextResolver1 that @Produces("text/*") and a ContextResolver2
that @Produces("text/xml") and adds them to the ProvidersRegistry as such:
addProvider(ContextResolver1, 5);
addProvider(ContextResolver2, 0);
Even though ContextResolver2 would be a closer match for media type
"text/xml", ContextResolver1 would be favored due to the higher declared
priority. Any thoughts on this?
If we all agree, I think we have some work to do around supporting this
priority feature; making sure the user knows what the default system
provider priority is, perhaps issuing warnings when the priority of their
provider is the same as the system default or negative, adding tests,
optimizing code paths in ProvidersRegistry, etc.
Please see patch in WINK-193 (this being the more informative) and WINK-167
(which is easier to see how the priority would be used as an override).
Thanks..
mike
