You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomee.apache.org by Jonathan Fisher <jo...@springventuregroup.com> on 2015/01/24 18:06:47 UTC
Dumb Question about the Jersey client
After encountering, then prompting and callously disabling TomEE's
heartfelt warning against using the Jersey client (see here:
http://tomee.apache.org/tip-jersey-client.html), I was wondering why *does* the
jersey-core jar include said classes? (This isn't a rhetorical question in
case anyone knows) It would more more sense to have jersey-core have a
Provided dependency and not mix Spec classes with implementation classes.
It seems like maybe we could maven shade a jar, or ever strip the Spec
classes out of the jersey-core jar and let them load off the system
classpath. Has this been looked into? I could probably see what I can do
if the TomEE devs think it's a worthwhile pursuit.
Any insight appreciated :)
*Jonathan Fisher*
*VP - Information Technology*
*Spring Venture Group*
--
Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this
transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be subject
to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the
message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil
penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the
sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from
any computer.
Re: Dumb Question about the Jersey client
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
No but then you ll get api conflicts with tomee 1
Le 25 janv. 2015 17:25, "Jonathan Fisher" <jo...@springventuregroup.com>
a écrit :
> Does this problem exist in Jersey client 2.x?? I just realized that was an
> option, d'oh!
>
>
> *Jonathan Fisher*
> *VP - Information Technology*
> *Spring Venture Group*
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely. This has been done for last spec version but no idea why
> jersey
> > 1 was so broken in term of packaging.
> > Le 24 janv. 2015 18:07, "Jonathan Fisher" <
> jonathan@springventuregroup.com
> > >
> > a écrit :
> >
> > > After encountering, then prompting and callously disabling TomEE's
> > > heartfelt warning against using the Jersey client (see here:
> > > http://tomee.apache.org/tip-jersey-client.html), I was wondering why
> > > *does* the
> > > jersey-core jar include said classes? (This isn't a rhetorical question
> > in
> > > case anyone knows) It would more more sense to have jersey-core have a
> > > Provided dependency and not mix Spec classes with implementation
> classes.
> > >
> > > It seems like maybe we could maven shade a jar, or ever strip the Spec
> > > classes out of the jersey-core jar and let them load off the system
> > > classpath. Has this been looked into? I could probably see what I can
> do
> > > if the TomEE devs think it's a worthwhile pursuit.
> > >
> > > Any insight appreciated :)
> > >
> > > *Jonathan Fisher*
> > > *VP - Information Technology*
> > > *Spring Venture Group*
> > >
> > > --
> > > Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this
> > > transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be
> > subject
> > > to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability
> > and
> > > Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of
> > the
> > > individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended
> > > recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of
> the
> > > message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil
> > > penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact
> the
> > > sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material
> from
> > > any computer.
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this
> transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be subject
> to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and
> Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of the
> individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the
> message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil
> penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the
> sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from
> any computer.
>
Re: Dumb Question about the Jersey client
Posted by Jonathan Fisher <jo...@springventuregroup.com>.
Does this problem exist in Jersey client 2.x?? I just realized that was an
option, d'oh!
*Jonathan Fisher*
*VP - Information Technology*
*Spring Venture Group*
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Absolutely. This has been done for last spec version but no idea why jersey
> 1 was so broken in term of packaging.
> Le 24 janv. 2015 18:07, "Jonathan Fisher" <jonathan@springventuregroup.com
> >
> a écrit :
>
> > After encountering, then prompting and callously disabling TomEE's
> > heartfelt warning against using the Jersey client (see here:
> > http://tomee.apache.org/tip-jersey-client.html), I was wondering why
> > *does* the
> > jersey-core jar include said classes? (This isn't a rhetorical question
> in
> > case anyone knows) It would more more sense to have jersey-core have a
> > Provided dependency and not mix Spec classes with implementation classes.
> >
> > It seems like maybe we could maven shade a jar, or ever strip the Spec
> > classes out of the jersey-core jar and let them load off the system
> > classpath. Has this been looked into? I could probably see what I can do
> > if the TomEE devs think it's a worthwhile pursuit.
> >
> > Any insight appreciated :)
> >
> > *Jonathan Fisher*
> > *VP - Information Technology*
> > *Spring Venture Group*
> >
> > --
> > Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this
> > transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be
> subject
> > to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability
> and
> > Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of
> the
> > individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the
> > message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil
> > penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the
> > sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from
> > any computer.
> >
>
--
Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this
transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be subject
to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the
message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil
penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the
sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from
any computer.
Re: Dumb Question about the Jersey client
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Absolutely. This has been done for last spec version but no idea why jersey
1 was so broken in term of packaging.
Le 24 janv. 2015 18:07, "Jonathan Fisher" <jo...@springventuregroup.com>
a écrit :
> After encountering, then prompting and callously disabling TomEE's
> heartfelt warning against using the Jersey client (see here:
> http://tomee.apache.org/tip-jersey-client.html), I was wondering why
> *does* the
> jersey-core jar include said classes? (This isn't a rhetorical question in
> case anyone knows) It would more more sense to have jersey-core have a
> Provided dependency and not mix Spec classes with implementation classes.
>
> It seems like maybe we could maven shade a jar, or ever strip the Spec
> classes out of the jersey-core jar and let them load off the system
> classpath. Has this been looked into? I could probably see what I can do
> if the TomEE devs think it's a worthwhile pursuit.
>
> Any insight appreciated :)
>
> *Jonathan Fisher*
> *VP - Information Technology*
> *Spring Venture Group*
>
> --
> Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this
> transmission is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be subject
> to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and
> Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of the
> individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the
> message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil
> penalties. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the
> sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from
> any computer.
>