-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/08/2010 02:50 PM, Tim Edwards wrote:
> It might be that I was missing the obvious but personally I never
> realised there was a correlation between JAX-RS and Jersey versions.
+1
I think it would suffice to have a page on the jersey website that
describes which JAX-RS version is implemented by the different versions
and also let this be stated in the maven description of the jersey-core.
This might change if JAX-RS 2.0 comes along breaks a lot of APIs, but I
think that there will be a new major version of jersey as well at that
point anyhow.
PS: I've been using the 1.1.5-ea-SNAPSHOTS for the last month or so
without any problems.
Regards,
Tarjei
>
> Seems to me going from 1.1.5 -> 2.0 will require explanation to those
> who know there was such a correlation in the first place and will
> largely be forgotten once the initial confusion has been overcome,
> whereas 1.1.5 -> 3.0 will require explanation to everybody else and will
> always be required to explain the absence of a 2.0.
>
> I guess the sensible route would be the one that requires the least
> explanation to the least people.
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Paul.Sandoz_at_Sun.COM [mailto:Paul.Sandoz_at_Sun.COM]
> *Sent:* 08 January 2010 13:32
> *To:* users_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Jersey] Releasing Jersey 1.1.5 on the week of Jan 18th
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Sudhakar Kumar wrote:
>
>> As a developer, I don't see the cause for confusion between the
>> versions of Jersey and JAX-RS. Introducing 2.0 or 3.0 when there
>> is no reason to do so is a permanent confusion in my opinion.
>>
>
> I did give a reason, of course it may not be a *good* enough reason
> to justify such a version change.
>
>
>> Thoughts from the community?
>>
>
> Yes please, the current input is most helpful but more would help me
> better decide on what direction to take.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==>
> to report this email as spam.
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication and its
> attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication and its attachments in error, please return the original
> message and attachments to the sender using the reply facility on
> e-mail. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Cambridge
> Assessment (the brand name for the University of Cambridge Local
> Examinations Syndicate, the constituent elements of which are CIE, ESOL
> and OCR [Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is a Company Limited by
> Guarantee Registered in England. Registered office: 1 Hills Road,
> Cambridge CB1 2EU. Company number: 3484466]) does not accept legal
> responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions
> presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Cambridge Assessment unless otherwise specifically
> stated. The information contained in this email may be subject to public
> disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the
> information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of
> this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl
> <http://www.blackspider.com/>
>
- --
Tarjei Huse
Mobil: 920 63 413
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFLR01uYVRKCnSvzfIRAuUsAJ9XofLcw33+w+yPpZcdPdisMlLvXQCgn4DB
h4GNdqum+tkJEjlBKp6Kym8=
=WM8b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----