Hi,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com>
wrote:
>
> JAX-RS is being used all over the place by people who do not work with
> Java EE. Plenty of users do it with standalone Tomcat or Jetty.
I know and I agree with you in that.
I however don't entirely agree that this is sidetracking the issue. In my
humble opinion it's maybe at the core of the problem. As I mentioned, JSF
is being used all over the place too by people who do not work with Java EE.
The way I see it everyone essentially wants Java EE (wants all the
services), but still they only want to use Tomcat + JSF, or Tomcat + JAX-RS.
Regards,
Arjan
> These users do not have to be forced to download JSF in order to do MVC.
>
> I wonder if Bill was right in his pessimism about this effort, I'm
> starting worrying too
>
> Sergey
>
>
>> Or about the new configuration JSR in Java EE:
>>
>> "I want to be able to tell users who do not use the configuration JSR
>> for doing configuration that they still can do configuration with JAX-RS"
>>
>> Or about a situation we already have, the managed bean model and
>> injection capabilities offered by CDI:
>>
>> "I want to be able to tell users who do not use CDI for doing injection
>> that they still can do injection with JAX-RS"
>>
>> It could go on and on, maybe in the future we'll have:
>>
>> "I want to be able to tell users who do not use JPA for doing
>> persistence that they still can do persistence with JAX-RS" (?)
>>
>>
>> Now it becomes even more difficult when we realize that JSF, just like
>> JAX-RS is also not only used by Java EE users. JSF in fact has been
>> usable outside Java EE from the very beginning and it has (IMHO) some
>> rather arcane backwards compatibility requirements just to satisfy this
>> other group of users. For JSF the exact same thing could be said:
>>
>> "I want to be able to tell users who do not use JAX-RS for doing MVC
>> that they still can do MVC with JSF" (ignoring for the moment that JSF
>> already does MVC and that "action oriented" is meant here).
>>
>> Taking this to the extreme, almost every single spec in Java EE could
>> theoretically become its own little Java EE, offering things like
>> validation, conversion, security, injection, MVC and what have you. I'm
>> not sure this is what we should aim for. In fact, as you may know JSF is
>> going the opposite route, dropping its own managed bean facility and
>> scopes in favour of CDI.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arjan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arjan
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Markus
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Markus KARG [mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu
>> <mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu>
>> <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
>> <http://java.net>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com <mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com>>]
>> Sent: Freitag, 30. Mai 2014 21:12
>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.__j__ava.net
>> <http://java.net>
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sergey Beryozkin
>
> Talend Community Coders
> http://coders.talend.com/
>
> Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
>