On 30/06/14 12:47, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 30/06/14 12:32, arjan tijms wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com
>> <mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I agree of course with the fact that JAX-RS is used outside Java EE as
>> well (as many other sub-specs of Java EE are).
>>
>> I apologize if the reply was too long, but the point I tried to make was
>> that JAX-RS is also part of Java EE, and thus that issues that concern
>> Java EE as a whole have to be taken into consideration as well.
>
> No problems about the reply being too long, why it should be a problem,
> but I was not keen to being taken on the EE 'ride' as if that was what I
> asked about with my supposedly naive comment.
>
> I don't see how keeping JAX-RS as light-weight as it is now can affect
> the concerns of EE users
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arjan
>>
>>
>> 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>__>__>
>> <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@jax-rs-spec.________java.net <http://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>>
>>
>>
>> <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>>>
>> <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@jax-rs-spec.__j______ava.net <http://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>>
>>
>>
>> <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
>>
>>
>>