Hi
There truth is there are tons of applications written using mvc. I don't
believe jax rs right now offer some flexibility to build mvc on top of
that. Anyway a change in jax rs is necessary.
Regards
Regards
On May 31, 2014 11:37 AM, "Michael Müller" <
michael.mueller_at_mueller-bruehl.de> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I followed the discussions in both groups. I can see and understand the
> reservation against bundling both techniques.
> JSF, as for now, is not very compatible to the REST paradigma. I like to
> use JSF and sometiomes, I miss a better collaboration with REST.
> But, from a point of view of an JSF user (not implementer), I really don't
> care whether JSF is implemented by a servlet or build on top of another
> technique (Ok, it's not really true, cause I'm using servlet functionality
> for special cases. But I've could have done this with other techniques
> too.). In this sense, I agree with Markus: Keep JAX-RS and JSF separated
> groups, but try to use the benefits of both.
>
> Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
>
> Michael Müller
>
> Am 30.05.2014 23:01, schrieb Markus KARG:
>
>> Frankly spoken, I am not clear about the intention of adding MVC support
>> particularly to JAX-RS. What do users expect to get in the end, keeping in
>> mind that JAX-RS's very own target is to provide a framework for RESTful
>> applications -- which by definition are stateless, while MVC is stateful,
>> just like JSF is. Could it be the case that MVC, just as with SSE (see my
>> other posting), is a candidate for a separate API built ONTOP of JAX-RS
>> (an
>> OPTIONAL extension to JAX-RS in a technical sense)? I think so, so if Bill
>> Shannon likes to get that, and the JAX-RS EG group denies this to be
>> RESTful, it might be an indicator that my proposal of splitting JAX-RS
>> into
>> "Java API for http" and "Things built ontop of that, like REST, SSE, and
>> MVC" is valid and should be implemented. If JSF wants to get an MVC layer
>> implemented by JAX-RS technology, the way to go then would be that "we"
>> (JAX-RS) provide "Java API for http" (= the technology defined by JAX-RS
>> currently), while the JSF guys *use* that to build their MVC stuff ontop.
>> But frankly spoken, I do not see why "we" (JAX-RS) should provide MVC, is
>> that is not REST.
>>
>> Regards
>> -Markus
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com]
>> Sent: Freitag, 30. Mai 2014 21:12
>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: MVC
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/23/2014 4:36 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>> On 22/05/14 22:05, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Experts,
>>>>
>>>> As you may have seen in the Java EE 8 survey, there was significant
>>>> interest in adding an MVC framework to the platform in EE 8. After
>>>> some analysis, we are convinced that the best place for this work is
>>>> in JAX-RS.next. In fact, as many of you may recall, this was on our
>>>> list for JAX-RS 2.0 but we've never got a chance to discuss it in any
>>>> detail.
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware of some discussion in the JSF alias in relation to MVC in
>>>> general, and its support as part of JAX-RS in particular. I plan to
>>>> send an e-mail to the JSF alias as a way to establish a liaison
>>>> between the two groups. I believe their expertise would be of great
>>>> value for us and will help us design a framework that addresses the
>>>> requirements of the EE community.
>>>>
>>>> Look forward to JAX-RS supporting MVC and SSE. As far as the future
>>> JAX-RS MVC is concerned, I hope it will not only target EE users
>>> though :-). i.e, it would work even if no JSF is available, but of
>>> course the input from JSF experts will be of great interest.
>>> Using Jersey MVC as a template would be a nice start IMHO, we have a
>>> less involved support for it, but I think it is close enough to the
>>> way Jersey does it in some cases.
>>>
>>> I am 100% against MVC in JAX-RS. Are we really going to introduce a
>> legacy
>> and now defunct pattern to JAX-RS? The trend and future is Angular JS or
>> GWT apps with simple RESTful back ends.
>>
>> This is wrong guys. You will regret adding and it will end up on the long
>> list of Java EE features that nobody uses and bloat we'll have to support.
>>
>> SSE and now MVC, I'm really disappointed in the direction of JAX-RS.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>
>>
>>
>