On 16/02/17 15:07, Pavel Bucek wrote:
> On 16/02/2017 14:42, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>>> I know that it feels odd (and it is) to have this done on part of
>>>>> the API and not on another part, but it was part of the internal
>>>>> review process and my arguments were ignored..
>>>>>
>>>> I've no problems with the internal reviewers having their input but
>>>> I'd have problems with them, possibly not being JAX-RS 2.1 experts
>>>> affecting how the final 2.1 API will look like. I'm not keen to
>>>> make a big deal out of it, the proposed API in general is of high
>>>> quality, but well, I guess the final details should be finalized
>>>> in this group :-)
>>>
>>> well.. we do code reviews and we are not going to change that. I
>>> admitted that, but if I wouldn't (and now I'm thinking it was a
>>> mistake), you don't have a chance to get that info.
>>>
>>> The reviewer in this case was the original author of this part (and
>>> others) of JAX-RS API, Marek. That was also communicated out to the
>>> EG, see
>>> https://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/lists/jsr370-experts/archive/2017-02/message/43
>>>
>>> I always respond to any comment from the EG member, JCP member,
>>> random users_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net mail, random tweet, etc. Everyone
>>> who wants has the chance to influence the API. Of course, the
>>> feedback from the EG has higher priority and importance. Also,
>>> please understand that we need some feedback. It's hard to design
>>> things without a need to defend the API. The process usually brings
>>> up other possible approaches, which is what happened in the last case.
>>>
>>> I hope you are not suggesting to make the process open exclusively
>>> for EG members. If not, please let's drop this topic, it is not
>>> leading anywhere.
>>>
>> I definitely did not suggest it. You did not make a mistake, you said
>> earlier there was an internal review, it is not a secret and as I
>> implied the review was generally helpful.
>> However I'm against having a situation where here at the experts list
>> we come up with the idea that something needs to be changed and you
>> will reply, well, hard luck, the internal reviewers disagree. Hope
>> you see what I mean
>
> We can deal with that when/if that happens.
>
> I don't recall me (or any other spec lead) dropping something without
> any explanation. It can happen that the explanation is not perceived
> positively, but the original cause most likely won't be internal
> review :) Anyway, this is too much of "what if" for me.
>
> I see what you mean, but please have some faith in spec leads - we are
> trying to do our best in the API design & delivery given the current
> constraints.
>
I've no idea what are you talking about. I keep repeating everywhere
what a good job the spec leads and indeed the Jersey team are doing. My
concern was not about a faith in the spec leads issue at all. Anyway,
lets return to the API specific issues...
Thanks, Sergey