Will providing a set of classes be sufficient, when initializing a
DataBinding from JAX-RS ?
Should it be a map instead, for Type(s) from
Method.getGenericResponseType()
Method.getGenericResponseTypes()[index]
also be available ?
thanks, Sergey
dkulp wrote:
>
>
> Basically, I think we
I'd prefer not to have a bunch of different init(..) methods on the interface
itself that everyone HAS to implement.
Ok, given this argument, I'm happy with having a single
void initialize(Map properties)
I guess I could've argued that perhaps only DataBindings shipped with CXF would implement
Basically, I think we should have:
interface PropertiesInitializedDataBinding extends Databinding {
void initialize(Map properties);
}
Then, we make our AbstractDataBinding implement that interface and add a
method like:
void initialize(Map properties) {
Service svc = properties.get("...S
Hi
I think what might make sense for a short term "binary compatible" type
approach is to add a new interface like "ClassSetDataBinding" or something
that defines the init(...) method that is needed for JAXRS. JAX-RS can then
do instanceof on the databinding to see if it WILL work for it.
I think what might make sense for a short term "binary compatible" type
approach is to add a new interface like "ClassSetDataBinding" or something
that defines the init(...) method that is needed for JAXRS. JAX-RS can then
do instanceof on the databinding to see if it WILL work for it. That
