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
>
>