On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Arul Dhesiaseelan wrote:
> It would be nice if JAX-RS defined a standard client-side API.
> Currently, every implementation (Jersey, Resteasy, Restlet) provide
> their own client APIs and it becomes cumbersome for tools to
> interface with different implementations and had to use specific
> client APIs when working with their resources. HTTP Client API is
> one option, but they are not modeled around the resources which the
> Jersey client API does it wisely.
>
> Any plans to provide a standard client API which can interoperate
> with various JAX-RS implementations?
>
Its something we might look at in a 2.0 API. However, I think it could
be quite tricky to get consensus around since the existing client APIs
are all rather different.
Marc.
>
> Craig McClanahan wrote:
>> amsmota_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>> Well, it occurs to me that both JAX-RS and Jersey dosen't define
>>> client-side API's (however, other JAX-RS based frameworks do, like
>>> Restlet and RestEasy, if I'm not mistaken....)
>>>
>>> So to build a full Web app you have to use Jersey *and* something
>>> else...
>>>
>>> (i'm reading your blog post by pieces, i must say...)
>>>
>> JAX-RS does not currently define any standard client side API, but
>> Jersey most definitely does And it works really well -- letting
>> you share the provider machinery from the server side. You can
>> start with the Javadocs[1], read examples on Paul's blog[2], or
>> look at nearly all the unit tests for jersey-server -- they use
>> jersey-client to exercise the server side features.
>>
>> [1] https://jersey.dev.java.net/source/browse/*checkout*/jersey/tags/jersey-1.0.1/api/jersey/index.html
>> [2] http://blogs.sun.com/sandoz/category/REST
>>
>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2009 3:45pm, James Strachan <james.strachan_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I've been pondering this for a little while; is JAX-RS the kinda
>>> long
>>> >
>>> > term replacement for all the zillions of web frameworks out there?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I tend to think, yes it mostly is for most requirements - and
>>> we're
>>> >
>>> > nearly there, just a few things to fix up and improve. I've just
>>> >
>>> > blogged (a rather long post for me) about it, brain dumping my
>>> >
>>> > thoughts
>>> >
>>> > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/01/jax-rs-as-one-web-framework-to-rule.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > it could well feed the trolls but it'd be interesting to hear if
>>> >
>>> > others have been having similar thoughts (or maybe I'm just
>>> smoking
>>> >
>>> > crack :). From seeing folks hit similar issues to me in the
>>> implicit
>>> >
>>> > views / static files /JSP mappings areas - it looks like at
>>> least a
>>> >
>>> > few folks are trying to do similar things.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > James
>>> >
>>> > -------
>>> >
>>> > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Open Source Integration
>>> >
>>> > http://fusesource.com/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>>> >
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.