Basically, I look for
On 30/06/14 15:25, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 30/06/14 14:58, arjan tijms wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com
>> <mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com>> 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?
As a side note - this helps, thanks - I did not know that 'MVC pull'
concept even existed which is something I'm Ok with admitting - and I've
no doubt I'll get to understand how it works in scope of possible JSF
related discussions.
But to summarize what I've said so far is that, and I'm repeating it
here, I'm Ok with JSF experts contributing to the effort but IMHO it is
absolutely critical that the solution ends up being portable (to be used
with multiple MVC frameworks) which would imply IMHO that JAX-RS will
end up specifying something very light, may be based on what Jerser
already provides.
Cheers, Sergey
>
> 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
>