[jax-rs-spec users] Re: Client proxy framework

From: Markus KARG <>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:07:06 +0200


again, I love your proposal! But regarding the driver to _standardization_, shouldn't it be "Do all vendors provide such similar feature"? At the W3C for example, we only accept features for standardization that are implemented _already_ by at least three different vendors. I mean, it is great that you have this cool solution in RestEasy, but is that a justification to enforce that feature into other products, too? That wouldn't be just standardization of _API_, but it would be copying the whole feature. I do not have any problem with your proposal, I just have a different view of what "standardization" should be good for: Aligning the API of _existing_ solutions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Burke []
Sent: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 21:28
Subject: Re: Client proxy framework

On 10/20/2015 2:20 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
> Bill,
> -1 for WADL from me, too. It just mentioned it to say that what people often ask not always means that it is a good idea.
> Yes, your proposal is sexy, no doubt. I actually love it. But the question is whether sexyness should be the main driver to decide which features to add to the spec?
By "sexy" I meant compelling. Main driver for standardizing is: Does somebody already have the feature in use? Check. Do people want to use it? Check.

Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat