Re: [Jersey] Jersey's (experimental) approach to support hypermedia constraint

From: Santiago Pericas-Geertsen <Santiago.Pericasgeertsen_at_Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:57:50 -0500

On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:

> Great! Given that you do not vehemently object to my qustion about the status codes it seems we are not that far apart :-)


 Still trying to catch up with this thread. So apologies if I'm missing something. For the most part, I agree with your comments and concerns.

 As you said, it is important to separate "active" vs. "passive" clients. Active clients (having their own "agenda") are more interesting to me as they relate more to the enterprise IMO. Although, most of the things you stated apply to passive clients, I'm still not convinced they apply to active ones.

 Active clients are more delicate and are driven by an agenda; as a result, they should either carry our their agenda or report an error indicating why they couldn't. An active client that automatically reacts (e.g. a client that is transferring funds between bank accounts) still scares me a bit, especially if the decision on how to react is programmed in the framework and not the application.

 Haven't had a chance to read your blog yet, but I think it would useful if you can put together a running example (using Jersey perhaps? :) of an active client that implements your ideas. That would disprove my current thinking that this is one of those cases in which the difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory.

-- Santiago