A very good point - forgot about that, sorry. "*/*" is just fine.
On 18.04.2011, at 15:25, Bill Burke wrote:
> FYI, The default media type is already defined as "*/*" in spec I believe. It should stay that way.
>
> On 4/12/11 7:25 AM, Adam Bien wrote:
>> 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
>>>> <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