Hi,
On 30/06/14 12:23, arjan tijms wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Sergey Beryozkin
> <sberyozkin_at_talend.com <mailto: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.
I understand you agree partially that it was side-tracking the issue ? I
was talking about JAX-RS and a necessity to have a simple link to the
view processors, you replied with a long thread which was not related to
what I was talking about.
Sergey
> 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>__>
> <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>
> <http://java.net>
>
> <mailto:jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-____spec.java.net
> <mailto:jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-__spec.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>>
> <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://j__ava.net>
> <http://java.net>
>
> <mailto:jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-____spec.java.net
> <mailto:jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-__spec.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
>
>