Re: [Resteasy-developers] Issue with Resteasy JAX-RS and interfaces

[Andreas H. <a...@ho...>]

Hello,

>  I need more information on this.  The spec says that either you put your
> annotations on an interface or on the class/superclass and not both. Can you
> show me more pseudo code?

I have attached some more code below. If the spec says that you either
annotate the interface or the class/superclass that you can mentally
remove the getSelf() defined in Device. It would move into the
concrete implementation.

interface Device {
    @GET
    Device getSelf();
}

@Path("devices")
class RootResource {
    Device getDevice(String id) {
        // lookup and return a device, which is either Device1 or Device2
    }
}

class Device1 implements Device {
    public Device getSelf() {
        return this;
    }

    @GET
    @Path("something")
    public Object getSomething() {
        // Get something
    }
}

class Device2 implements Device {
    public Device getSelf() {
        return this;
    }

    @GET
    @Path("else")
    public Object getSomethingElse() {
        // Get something else
    }
}

>  So derivatives of Device are returned from getDevice()?  The problem with
> this is a performance one.  Resteasy would have to calculate and introspect
> and match the request on every single request.  There would be no way to
> optimize.
>
>  I guess I'll have to support it...  I'll see what I can do today and get
> out a new release.
>

Yes, exactly. Thanks! Take your time with the implementation, I'm not
in a hurry.

>
>  Well, I'm in a quandry with this one.  Reason?  Generic types.  Say you
> want to write a multipart provider that matches on List<String>?  it is
> impossible to determine the generic type of the object.
>
>  I switch it to matching on the returned entity's class.

When looking more into this I realize that I would expect the
following from the
isWriteable(Class, Type, Annotation[]) method:

* Class is the actual class of what would be written
* Type is the defined type (such as Device or List<String>)

Does that make sense?

Thanks for your speedy response!

// Andreas