Hi,
Treating it as a tie-breaker is fine with me. If that's the consensus,
I'll go re-work the patches in WINK-193 and WINK-167 to use priority param
as a tie-breaker and integrate Bryant's suggestions. I won't be able to
get to it until Friday, though, as I'm on vacation the next two days.
Thanks..
mike
From: Bryant Luk <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 09/22/2009 01:55 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] priority sort key as override for Providers?
I think there should be a clear distinction in Wink provider priority
from default (system) providers versus user added ones (whether
priority is defined as a tie-breaker or an override).
For the ones added automatically via wink-providers,I would prefer
somewhere in-between default system ones and explicitly user-added
ones in the JAX-RS Application subclass and any other config
registration system. I think this would allow users to drop in
wink-provider JARs if they want to override the defaults while still
respecting the programmatic config.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Michael Elman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Originally it was designed as a "tie-breaker".
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Michael Rheinheimer
<[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
--
- Bryant Luk
