JAX-RS CoC should align with JPA, EJB 3.1, CDI "style" first. We need to agree on a default MediaType, method, Path etc. I think default values are easy to derive if not obvious. This is essential and "critical".
After the definition of the defaults we could think about "pluggable" CoC. From my point of view it would be prio 2. Agreed?
On 10.04.2011, at 15:54, Guilherme Silveira wrote:
> 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> 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] 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 obvious...
>>
>