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

[jsr339-experts] Re: Low-level JAX-RS client API proposal

From: Markus KARG <markus_at_headcrashing.eu>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:09:54 +0200

Bill, I got the point already but just want to make clear that it is a difference to say "not breaking" and "not breaking in this release".

Unless we have a clear charter everything can be discussed. If you don't like to participate in a particular thread, you can just abstain.

And please, there is no need to get rude. We all are professionals and should be able to discuss complex things without getting agressive or offending.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 17. Mai 2011 20:59
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Low-level JAX-RS client API proposal
>
> Re-read the post. Things must be marked as pruned/deprecated for a
> full
> relelase and aren't pruned/depcecated UNTIL THE NEXT RELEASE of the
> specification.
>
> SO, even though CMP was pruned in EE6, you still had to provide a full
> implementaiton of it in EE6. You should take a look at the Servlet API
> or even the JDK itself and see all the deprecated methods that are
> there.
>
> So, you can't break backward compatibility in JAX-RS 2.0. Its not an
> option, fogetaboutit. Period. So stop suggesting to do so, its
> getting
> really annoying.
>
>
> On 5/17/11 2:13 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
> > What kind of play is that? A Java EE 7 compliant server product is
> allowed to not implement CMR, so applications using CMR will not run on
> that product anymore. In simple words: Backwards compatibility IS
> BROKEN THEN.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marek Potociar [mailto:marek.potociar_at_oracle.com]
> >> Sent: Montag, 16. Mai 2011 22:05
> >> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> >> Cc: Markus KARG
> >> Subject: Re: [jsr339-experts] Re: Low-level JAX-RS client API
> proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/14/2011 09:45 AM, Markus KARG wrote:
> >>> If it can be removed in EE 7, it will be gone and will not run CMR
> >> anymore. So what is untrue here?
> >>
> >> To clarify, the CMP/BMP feature was *pruned*, not deprecated[*].
> Also,
> >> pruned features will *NOT* be removed from the
> >> JavaEE spec, they will be made optional. IOW, JavaEE compliant
> >> implementations may choose not to implement an optional
> >> feature without loosing the compliance status. However, RIs are
> >> expected to still keep supporting all the previously
> >> pruned and now optional features.
> >>
> >> Marek
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com]
> >>>> Sent: Freitag, 13. Mai 2011 23:46
> >>>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> >>>> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Low-level JAX-RS client API proposal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/13/11 2:18 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
> >>>>> Nobody disallows it an EJB broke BW compatibility from EJB 2 to
> EJB
> >>>> 3, too, and plans to drop even more legacy features in future. So
> >> why
> >>>> should especially rather new JAX RS not be allowed to?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Markus, this is *COMPLETELY* untrue. EJB 3 was BW compatible with
> >>>> EJB2.
> >>>> An EJB 2.x bean must be deployable in an EJB3 container.
> CMP/BMP
> >> was
> >>>> deprecated in EE6, but required by compliant implementations of
> EE6.
> >>>> After one major release marked for deprecation, it can be removed
> in
> >> EE
> >>>> 7.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Bill Burke
> >>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> >>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
> >>>
> >
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com