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

From: Sergey Beryozkin <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:25:33 +0100

On 30/06/14 14:58, arjan tijms wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <
> <>> wrote:
> 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?

Hold on. I don't like you making the assumptions about me kind of
dismissing that the conversation about the intersection between JAX-RS
and JSF should take place. Neither I like you quoting single lines from
my earlier comments which loses the context.

> "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?

You got it wrong. Let me clarify: I do not mind if Java EE developers
working with JAX-RS will start using JSF for the MVC work or not once
the JAX-RS MVC work is done, and presumably JSF becoming a de-facto
'consumer' of JAX-RS MVC. That is not important for me. What is
important for me is that I or other users can work with JAX-RS MVC
without having to depend on JSF.

Does it make it clearer to you ?

> 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?

AFAIK we have not started a technical discussion yet and as such I'm not
sure why are we talking about these technical distinctions here

Cheers, Sergey

> Regards,
> Arjan