On Jan 8, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Gisella Saavedra wrote:
> Paul,
>
> are these differences from JAX-RS only on the client side?
No, Jersey implements a bunch of extra stuff, see the right hand side
of the following for additional APIs:
https://jersey.dev.java.net/
and look at the dependencies:
https://jersey.dev.java.net/nonav/documentation/latest/user-guide.html
#chapter_deps
> I have not followed closely this topic.
>
> Which is the JAX-RS version?
>
Jersey 1.0.3.1 implements JAX-RS 1.0
Jersey 1.1.4.1 implements JAX-RS 1.1
JAX-RS 1.1 is binary backwards compatible with JAX-RS 1.0.
> Can you point to some URL explaining the differences and/or the
> reasons for
> this separation?
>
Jersey implements one or more APIs. One of those APIs is the JAX-RS
API which is specified by the JSR 311 Expert Group of the JCP, hence
the separation. The other APIs that Jersey implements are part of
Jersey itself. Developers wanting to develop portable JAX-RS
application should not depend on the Jersey APIs.
Paul.
> The reason I would like to know is that we document the 3rd. party
> software
> we use, which standards they implement, and why we decided to use a
> particular implementation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gisella
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul.Sandoz_at_Sun.COM [mailto:Paul.Sandoz_at_Sun.COM]
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 4:48 AM
> To: users_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> Subject: [Jersey] Releasing Jersey 1.1.5 on the week of Jan 18th
>
> Hi,
>
> We plan to release Jersey 1.1.5 on the week on Jan 18th.
>
> Jakub is working hard on the OSGi stuff but we want to make sure we
> get it right, and it might require some more soak time in the trunk
> (currently it is in a branch) for other developers to have a play with
> and provide feedback.
>
>
> After that release i am proposing to change the versioning scheme of
> Jersey. Currently we retain the first two numbers as the major and
> minor version of the JAX-RS API Jersey implementations. This is not
> ideal:
>
> 1) Jersey has it's own API that evolves separately it makes it harder
> to signal major, minor, micro status of Jersey itself;
>
> 2) The current versioning scheme does not work very well with maven
> and OSGi, for example 1.1.4.1; and
>
> 3) Then we can consider Markus recommendations for declaring version
> ranges for dependencies.
>
>
> I have been advised that to avoid confusion with the JAX-RS version we
> should choose a version of Jersey that is clearly different. Thus i
> propose that we start the next version at 3.0, even though of course
> it does not really represent a major change.
>
> Paul.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>