HI Bill,
On 14.03.2011, at 14:40, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/11 12:46 PM, Guilherme Silveira wrote:
>>>> FYI: Resteasy does have thousands of users and is used by many of our
>>>> customers in production.
>> So does EJB 2.0. Adpotance doesn't ensure design quality (but might
>> ensure correctness), and is exactly this case. If the design was
>> another, it would easily allow to make *anything* change in a
>> compatible way, but it doesnt.
>>
>
> I'm just saying resteasy obviously doesn't suck as Markus seemed to suggest considering there are a few alternatives out there...TBH, I have had zero people asking me for code by convention. On our lists, customers, when I give JAX-RS talks, etc. Code by convention is useful in some situations, in this one, I"m not convinced it is. Because I have zero people asking for this feature, and we have a solid user base, I'll stick to my opinion.
Code by convention is not the hottest feature request, but especially Rails developers ask me a lot about this redundancy. It is not a productivity boost, but we should not require developers to provide redundant metadata as well.
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com