That would be awesome if 2.0 addresses this concern. It opens up room
for building highly interoperable restful services where services are
clients too and resource interaction is not limited by the client API.
Is 2.0 work done under existing JSR311 or a separate JSR?
-Arul
Marc Hadley wrote:
> 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/
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>