Jakarta REST 5.0 Epic

Question

Jakarta REST 5.0 Epic

Opened this issue a year ago · 19 comments

Answer 1 · 2023-06-26T16:18:30.000Z

Is there an issue filed about removing @AsyncResponse? I couldn't find anything in my search, but I may have just missed it.

Answer 2 · 2023-06-27T05:59:30.000Z

Is there an issue filed about removing @AsyncResponse? I couldn't find anything in my search, but I may have just missed it.

I am not aware that we decided to do so.

@spericas Why using a new branch? Why not developing on master branch?

Answer 3 · 2023-06-27T13:32:54.000Z

Is there an issue filed about removing @AsyncResponse? I couldn't find anything in my search, but I may have just missed it.

I am not aware that we decided to do so.

There's no longer a need for the annotation if @Entity is introduced as you an see in the PDF file. The param type is sufficient to determine the type of call.

@spericas Why using a new branch? Why not developing on master branch?

We can switch after the TCK work (challenges) is complete.

Answer 4 · 2023-06-27T13:33:47.000Z

Is there an issue filed about removing @AsyncResponse? I couldn't find anything in my search, but I may have just missed it.

I don't think so. Note that it's easy to create issues by clicking on one of the epic bullets above ...

Answer 5 · 2023-06-30T15:46:29.000Z

Is there an issue filed about removing @AsyncResponse? I couldn't find anything in my search, but I may have just missed it.

I don't think so. Note that it's easy to create issues by clicking on one of the epic bullets above ...

Sorry for the delay. I'm not sure I fully grok this part yet so I need to do some reading.

Overall though, I think the proposal makes sense. I've got some CDI questions, especially around clients, but that seems more of a fit for CDI specific issue. I need to re-read that issue anyway since it's been a while :)

Answer 6 · 2023-08-13T18:04:27.000Z

Top-level files will be fine when my recently opened PRs are resolved. Checking the issue already, as there are no top-level files to be modified.

Update: PR was merged meanwhile.

Answer 7 · 2023-08-31T16:07:35.000Z

Hi all, I'm looking for some more information about the new @Entity annotation.

I can't find any discussion around it other than "Use of new annotation @entity is required" in @spericas presentation PDF.

This seems to just make the method signature more verbose without adding any additional functionality. Is this correct? Or does this annotation impact additional behavior that I am unaware of?

Answer 8 · 2023-08-31T16:23:45.000Z

@WhiteCat22 I could be wrong, but my understanding is we need a way to indicate which part of a method signature is the entity because the @Context and @Suspend annotations are being removed. In the document the following example is used:

@POST
@Path("async")
@Consumes(MediaType.TEXT_PLAIN)
public void putMessageAsync(
  @QueryParam("override") boolean override,
  @Entity String message,
  AsyncResponse ar) {
    Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().submit(() -> {
        // …
        ar.resume("Done");
    });
}

Since @Suspend is not longer available, we need the @Entity to determine which parameter is the entity.

In some ways it could be considered less verbose because @Context and @Suspend will not be required as arguments for things like Sse, SseEvent, AsyncResponse, etc.

Answer 9 · 2023-08-31T16:33:26.000Z

@WhiteCat22 @jamezp Not just that, with CDI taking control of the method call, developers will be able to inject any CDI bean as a parameter, but only one of those injections will correspond to the request entity.

Answer 10 · 2023-08-31T17:07:30.000Z

Makes sense! Thank you!

Answer 11 · 2023-08-31T21:43:00.000Z

Is removal of the JAXB dependency related to this issue?

Should Remove all use of @Context and @AsyncResponse and related classes read Remove all use of @Context and @Suspended and related classes?

Answer 12 · 2023-09-01T12:45:19.000Z

Is removal of the JAXB dependency related to this issue?

Sort of, it is more related to 4.0 in general, not directly related to the CDI work.

Should Remove all use of @Context and @AsyncResponse and related classes read Remove all use of @Context and @Suspended and related classes?

Fixed, thanks.

Answer 13 · 2023-09-13T21:18:47.000Z

Hi all, after presenting RESTFulWS-4.0 to the rest of the Open Liberty organization @jim-krueger and I received feedback on the new @Entity annotation. I opened #1183 for discussion.

Answer 14 · 2023-10-12T20:08:46.000Z

There is action item above for adding TCK for the new Multipart function added in version 3.1. Should we also add an action item to add TCK for the requirement of the default exception mapper in 3.1? Issue 858. I don't believe any new tests were added.

Answer 15 · 2023-10-16T13:24:50.000Z

There is action item above for adding TCK for the new Multipart function added in version 3.1. Should we also add an action item to add TCK for the requirement of the default exception mapper in 3.1? Issue 858. I don't believe any new tests were added.

Sure, I'm not sure either if tested in the TCK. Opening an issue for investigation seems like the right step.

Answer 16 · 2023-10-16T13:43:32.000Z

Sure, I'm not sure either if tested in the TCK. Opening an issue for investigation seems like the right step.

Agreed. Created Issue 1188 and updated checklist on top.

Answer 17 · 2023-10-30T22:33:07.000Z

With the Milestone 1 deadline approaching December 5th. Are there thoughts on what things above must be in the spec/api's for M1 and what things are optional for that deadline?

Answer 18 · 2023-11-06T18:20:52.000Z

@jim-krueger I'd say optional would be TCKs and integrations with other specs, mostly everything else should be there. I'd say going over the spec and updating it to reflect the changes in 4.0 would be high priority. If someone can volunteer for that, it would be very helpful.

Answer 19 · 2023-11-15T21:33:52.000Z

@spericas I made a first pass at some spec changes for M1. Please give it a review when you can. Thanks. #1192