On Jan 11, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Markus Karg wrote:
>
>> Existence of extensions beyond core JAX-RS (esp. client side)
>> complicates things obviously. I would think that it would make good
>> sense to separate client-side package more from core and server side.
>> And client versioning should not be artifically kept in sync if
>> (when)
>> it develops at significantly faster pace. So there is nothing wrong
>> with having, say, Jersey-client 4.0, that would use JAX-RS 2.0 API.
>
> I think this is a good idea. In fact, modularization would be
> beneficial, e.
> g. for smaller footprint and loading time etc. So maybe Jersey
> should get
> completely split into different JARs, like "jersey.jar" for only the
> JAX-RS
> implementation, "jersey-servlet" for the engine based on Servlet API,
> "jersey-grizzly" for the engine based on Grizzly API, "jersey-json"
> and so
> on? Sounds like a good idea and clearly solves the problem of the
> dependencies. But also sounds like a rather big bunch of work...
>
Yes.
Let's sort out the single version first.
Paul.