jsr339-experts@jax-rs-spec.java.net

[jsr339-experts] Re: Annotations CoC [Was: Convention Over Configuration]

From: Markus KARG <markus_at_headcrashing.eu>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:58:49 +0200

Guilherme,

 

with the target "CoC" im mind, looking at the *average user* of JAX-RS, I
cannot find a better word than "rocket science": If a *user* would be clever
enough to implement such an interface, he wouldn't have a need for CoC IMHO,
since CoC in my experience is most appreciated not by *lazy* people but more
by the "not-so-skilled" ones (in other words, users like CoC because they
don't need to understand what's going on or what the correct syntax would be
like ["it works somehow magically"], not because they do understand how to
configure but just don't want to type the stuff in). That's why I think for
*those* people (in my experience: the majority of average users) to get the
largest benefit of our CoC efforts, the need for understanding such a
complex interface would be experienced as being "rocket science" so they
wouldn't use it at all. But if people don't use it largely, there is no
justification to provide a standard for it. So it could be a really useful
extension of your framework, but I just don't see that it is so wide-spread
needed that we should define a standard for it. In my opinion, our CoC
target should be to define that 80% of use cases that people would love to
see a simple "best CoC guess" built into JAX-RS, not to define an API for
the other 20% experts that just are too lazy to type. But that is just *my*
opinion, maybe the other experts think different.

 

Regards

Markus

 

From: guilherme.silveira_at_gmail.com [mailto:guilherme.silveira_at_gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Guilherme Silveira
Sent: Samstag, 9. April 2011 23:27
To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Annotations CoC [Was: Convention Over
Configuration]

 

If its out of scope I can understand. But I disagree about its difficulties,
or even rocket sciwnce. Extracting simple interfaces should be easier to do
than agreeing whether a rest consumer should be bound to its server
interface.

Regards

On 09/04/2011 4:34 PM, "Markus KARG" <markus_at_headcrashing.eu> wrote:

While obviously CoC is something that is really beneficial to the user's
productivity, I do not think we could find a real justification for adding
another complex API for a pluggable rule set (it would be counter-productive
since it is another thing to learn and support). There are other items
besides CoC of much higher and global interest in our stack, so we should
keep things simple in this area and just think over a few places where CoC
makes really sense instead of doing rocket science.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marek Potociar [mailto:marek.potociar_at_oracle.com]
> Sent: Frei...