THere's some other SPIs that Guilherme (I think) suggested earlier that
are more interesting, IMO.
On 4/11/11 1:30 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
> If it is really only one line, and it can be absolutely unamiguously
> specified in one 10 lines of spec, then for me it is ok. But I share
> others' opinion that users must first take a few at that single line
> *and* understand how it works. If that is not a problem for a JAX-RS
> beginner, I don't have anything against it. I would abstain from voting
> then, because I still don't see the widespread need.
>
> *From:*guilherme.silveira_at_gmail.com
> [mailto:guilherme.silveira_at_gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Guilherme Silveira
> *Sent:* Sonntag, 10. April 2011 15:55
> *To:* jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> *Subject:* [jsr339-experts] Re: Annotations CoC [Was: Convention Over
> Configuration]
>
> Hi Markus,
>
> An interface with one method that receives one string and returns
> another is not a complex one in my point of view. Its only more complex
> than a interface with no methods.
> Although 80% is surely great, 100% with 10 extra lines of spec sounds
> better for me. 3 for the interface less than 7 for explaining how it works.
>
> Of course, this is the interface for the case in discussion. It could be
> improved in several ways.
>
> Regards
>
> On 10/04/2011 4:59 PM, "Markus KARG" <markus_at_headcrashing.eu
> <mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu>> wrote:
>
> 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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu>> wrote:
> >
> > While obvious...
>
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com