RE: [Jersey] Goals for hypertext constraint support

From: Markus Karg <>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:03:57 +0100


> with all due respect -- you certainly care about REST, and have
> provided lots of information and valid points -- I think that there is
> some discrepancy with above statement, and some earlier comments.
> It is perfectly ok to display frustration, disagree and so on, but I
> am not big fan of sugarcoating things that have been said, after the
> fact. I think Paul has quite well declared his position. I am not
> completely sure you have declared yours -- maybe I just misunderstand
> some of the comments, or am unable to reconcile seemingly inconsistent
> comments.

Yes I think you misunderstood comments. If you like, post what you thought
to be "invalid" in any sense and I will explain.

> Let's keep discussion honest. And please, let us not try to score
> points with external parties. I enjoyed Roy's response to question
> posed -- he is a very knowledgeable person -- but not so much
> commentary that seemed focused on scoring points (winning the
> argument), not in resolving open questions.

I do not see what is not honest in the discussion, and the idea of invite
Roy was to shorten the discussion, not to "win" in any sense. In fact, I
don't care whether I "win" the discussion or not, because my intension is
just to keep the JAX-RS API clean and RESTful, not to find exactly my ideas
implemented or others discarded. The discussion helped me to understand what
the proposal actually was meant like, and it turned out that some things are
not so brilliant while others had been just misunderstandings. Ain't that
the target of a discussion? Ain't it valid and worth to discuss this (if
not, why did you participate?)?

As you might have not noticed, it was actually Roy that convinced me that I
was wrong and I agreed meanwhile to many arguments of Marc, Paul, Santiago
and all the others, so it was worth asking him, as he clearly told the facts
while the others just wrote their interpretation (see my blog entry why I
don't care for interpretations but solely for definitions). Also, Roy is not
an "external", as this is an open forum (didn't know that there is actually
the possibility that someone could be "external" in this forum at all). It
is just the most simple solution for a dispute to ask the man who wrote the
book. What is wrong with that?

Cannot see what you think is not honest or what your actually complaint is.
I wrote the above lines to Paul as a direct reaction to his comments about
the discussion itself: I respect Paul and actually appreciate him (and he
knows that), but I dislike the idea that he tells me when or with whom or in
what depth I am doing discussions in this forum, as long as others find the
discussion interesting enough to participate, like Jan -or even you- for
example. I felt actually offended by his comments about the discussion, even
if he might not wanted to offend me (what I in fact assume), and so I told
him why I would prefer if he simply skips my postings instead of complaining
about them, which is a practical solution that does *not* offend me (as I
don't notice it). Keep the community discussing if it likes to discuss. No
need to interfere if one doesn't like to.

What is your actual problem with that?