[jax-rs-spec users] Re: [jsr339-experts] Re: MVC

From: arjan tijms <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:58:08 +0200

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <>

> What I think you're referring to is whether JSF will become the action
>> oriented MVC implementation of choice, right?
> In this group we discuss JAX-RS related issues.

Of course, but as I mentioned, JAX-RS is part of Java EE. JSF is also part
of Java EE. So I guess it's not entirely off-topic to discuss some matters
of JSF here where it overlaps with what JAX-RS may be doing?

"JSF will become an MVC implementation of choice for
> EE developers *working with JAX-RS*"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're saying here is that you
don't care whether JSF will use JAX-RS as a foundation or not? While that's
an interesting discussion by itself, it's not exactly what I meant to say
with my comment.

What I more precisely meant only concerns the usage of the term "MVC".

In this particular discussion the term "MVC" is given a very specific
meaning, namely the way in how Spring MVC among others implements the
pattern. This may cause some unnecessary confusion, as it's not the only
way to do MVC. As mentioned, JSF does MVC as well but in a different way.

More correct perhaps would be to speak about adding "action oriented" web
framework capabilities or "MVC push" in contrast to the "MVC pull" pattern
that's currently implemented by JSF and thus in Java EE.

To sum up I propose to take the following into account:

1. Just "MVC" is too broad
2. Use "MVC push"/"action oriented" for what Spring MVC does
3. Use "MVC pull" for what JSF does

Would that make things more clear?