On 10/19/2012 9:29 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> On Fri 2012-10-19 8:40, Bill Burke wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2012 8:32 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>>> Bill, I am not in the jsr399 EG list so please forward my email if the
>>> list is not open to non registered persons. I tried to join with my
>>> Java.net account emmanuelbernard but I am no authorized.
>>>
>>> On Fri 2012-10-19 7:52, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> BV 1.0 exists and is final, so your argument is invalid. The
>>>> proposed integration is simple, only for Java EE environments, and
>>>> is not BV version dependent.
>>>
>>> JAX-RS validation will require method validation which is a feature
>>> coming in BV 1.1.
>>>
>>
>> Ok then, I have no counterargument to Marke...Sorry Emmanuel.
>> JAX-RS 1.1 came out same time as Java EE 6 to address integration
>> issues. Marek seems to want to do the same thing. You ok with that
>> Emmanuel?
>
> Are you telling me that:
>
> - JAX-RS 2.0 comes out very early next year
> - JAX-RS 2.1 or 2.0.MR comes out before Java EE 7 is finalized and Java
> EE 7 when coming out will for sure include JAX-RS 2.0MR
>
> If that is the case then no I don't have any problem as long as we can
> bring back the integration proposal to the table in time for the MR.
> I did not know that this was the plan.
>
> But in the mean time, I would recommend that JAX-RS 2.0 drops entirely
> the word validation from the specification. Piggy backing on CDI's
> future integration is too adventurous at this stage.
>
> By the way, why is my previous message marked as Message not available?
> http://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/lists/jsr339-experts/archive/2012-10/message/107
>
> Emmanuel
>
See Emmanuel's response above. Sorry if that was the plan all along Marek.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com