On 30/06/14 11:00, arjan tijms wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Sergey Beryozkin
> <sberyozkin_at_talend.com <mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't have problems about JSF experts contributing to the effort
> for JSF benefit from it, but I'd have major issues with it all
> becoming about JSF.
>
>
> Why?
>
> If JSF would prove to be capable of providing the exact functionality
> that's required by Java EE users, why would it matter then that it's
> implemented by JSF?
Sure, let JSF meet the requirements of Java EE users.
JAX-RS though is not used only by Java EE users and this is one of
reasons it's been generally more popular.
I want to be able to tell users who do not use JSF for doing MVC that
they still can do MVC with JAX-RS
Cheers, Sergey
>
> Regards,
> Arjan
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus KARG [mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu
> <mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu>__]
> Sent: Freitag, 30. Mai 2014 23:02
> To: 'jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.__java.net
> <mailto:jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net>'
> Subject: RE: [jsr339-experts] Re: MVC
>
> Frankly spoken, I am not clear about the intention of adding MVC
> support
> particularly to JAX-RS. What do users expect to get in the end,
> keeping in
> mind that JAX-RS's very own target is to provide a framework for
> RESTful
> applications -- which by definition are stateless, while MVC is
> stateful,
> just like JSF is. Could it be the case that MVC, just as with
> SSE (see my
> other posting), is a candidate for a separate API built ONTOP of
> JAX-RS (an
> OPTIONAL extension to JAX-RS in a technical sense)? I think so,
> so if Bill
> Shannon likes to get that, and the JAX-RS EG group denies this to be
> RESTful, it might be an indicator that my proposal of splitting
> JAX-RS into
> "Java API for http" and "Things built ontop of that, like REST,
> SSE, and
> MVC" is valid and should be implemented. If JSF wants to get an
> MVC layer
> implemented by JAX-RS technology, the way to go then would be
> that "we"
> (JAX-RS) provide "Java API for http" (= the technology defined
> by JAX-RS
> currently), while the JSF guys *use* that to build their MVC
> stuff ontop.
> But frankly spoken, I do not see why "we" (JAX-RS) should
> provide MVC, is
> that is not REST.
>
> Regards
> -Markus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com
> <mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com>]
> Sent: Freitag, 30. Mai 2014 21:12
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.__java.net
> <mailto:jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net>
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: MVC
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2014 4:36 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
> Hi
> On 22/05/14 22:05, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> Dear Experts,
>
> As you may have seen in the Java EE 8 survey, there
> was significant
> interest in adding an MVC framework to the platform in
> EE 8. After
> some analysis, we are convinced that the best place for
> this work is
> in JAX-RS.next. In fact, as many of you may recall, this
> was on our
> list for JAX-RS 2.0 but we've never got a chance to
> discuss it in any
> detail.
>
> I'm aware of some discussion in the JSF alias in
> relation to MVC in
> general, and its support as part of JAX-RS in
> particular. I plan to
> send an e-mail to the JSF alias as a way to establish a
> liaison
> between the two groups. I believe their expertise would
> be of great
> value for us and will help us design a framework that
> addresses the
> requirements of the EE community.
>
> Look forward to JAX-RS supporting MVC and SSE. As far as the
> future
> JAX-RS MVC is concerned, I hope it will not only target EE users
> though :-). i.e, it would work even if no JSF is available,
> but of
> course the input from JSF experts will be of great interest.
> Using Jersey MVC as a template would be a nice start IMHO,
> we have a
> less involved support for it, but I think it is close enough
> to the
> way Jersey does it in some cases.
>
>
> I am 100% against MVC in JAX-RS. Are we really going to
> introduce a legacy
> and now defunct pattern to JAX-RS? The trend and future is
> Angular JS or
> GWT apps with simple RESTful back ends.
>
> This is wrong guys. You will regret adding and it will end up
> on the long
> list of Java EE features that nobody uses and bloat we'll have
> to support.
>
> SSE and now MVC, I'm really disappointed in the direction of JAX-RS.
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>
>
>
> --
> Sergey Beryozkin
>
> Talend Community Coders
> http://coders.talend.com/
>
> Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
>
>