Ok I understand an agree, but see, "should" means not "must", you know. ;-)
From: Adam Bien [mailto:abien_at_adam-bien.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 22:18
To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Annotations CoC [Was: Convention Over
Configuration]
On 12.04.2011, at 21:45, Markus KARG wrote:
Side note: I also think that CoC is essential, but I think it is far from
"critical".
We could downgrade the severity of CoC to "unimportant" - but it should be
realized in Java EE 7 :-)
From: Adam Bien [mailto:abien_at_adam-bien.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 13:26
To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Annotations CoC [Was: Convention Over
Configuration]
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...