> Thanks Bill. What Emmanuel infers was not the plan. The plan was to
> have full BV 1.1 support included in JAX-RS 2.0 spec. And I do not want
> to go into details here, but due to some scheduling conflicts the plan
> did not work out. This does not mean that we will not try to fix things
> as soon as possible. But I'm ready to resist any attempts to force JAX-
> RS spec to adopt a workaround solution just for the sake of saving a
> few months. Even if Java EE 7 is does not contain JAX-RS 2.0MR, no one
> will stop EE vendors from upgrading their support to the MR version
> once it's available.
From the view of an ISV the last sentence is inacceptable. The sense of
standards is that ISVs can rely upon. No ISV will provide any solution using
BV in JAX-RS if neither JAX-RS not Java EE 7 guarantee the *all* compliant
products *must* support it in the same way and level. I do not see
acceptance for ideas like "if a vendor likes he can do that later, but it is
totally random".