On 10/19/2012 11:50 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> NO. It is not likely that JAX-RS 2.0MR will be out before Java EE 7, unless of course Java EE 7 does not slip for another 6 moths, which is unlikely. That is not the plan.
>
Explain to me why we cannot reference BV 1.1 in JAx-RS 2.0 then? The
suggested added wording for JAX-RS + BV integration is so general and
high-level, IMO, you don't need a finished BV spec. Or, in other words,
there shouldn't be anything added to BV that would hinder the additional
wording.
IMO, an integrated platform is just as important as an independent spec.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com