Hi Eran,
You're talking about a business problem, not a technical one. In that
context, it makes little difference whether a technology is bundled with
JavaEE or not. The problem is that historically, Oracle only supports
technologies that are bundled as part of JavaEE. Change that and the
equation changes.
Alternatively, get them to drop support for any technology over 5 years
old. They kind of did that with Java. Kind of. They still support 10+
year old version of Java for paying customers which (in my view) is
holding back the rest of the community.
Anyway, this has turned into more of a rant than an answer to your
question :) Good luck to you and my 2 cents is: don't be afraid to roam
outside of the JavaEE world. There are plenty of excellent (superior)
technologies with very good support outside this envelop. You just have
to look a bit harder.
Gili
On 22/05/2014 2:14 PM, Eran Medan wrote:
> Thanks Gili, good point
> My worry is that the opposite will happen to Jersey MVC, without an
> "official" support, it will lack adoption, Oracle will not promote it
> on conferences, webinars, tutorials, and people will avoid trying it
> because it might be "removed" and is not "official".
>
> Perhaps we need a new standalone "Java Web" as an extraction of the
> web profile from "Java EE" which will "start from scratch" and try to
> become more aligned toward modern web development (Grails, Play,
> Rails, and even latest versions of Spring MVC)
>
> Or perhaps it's not Java's job to try to catch up, and let other
> frameworks do the work. I just think that if you already start with a
> big lib signature for a stripped down vanilla Java EE package. Adding
> Spring or Jersey MVC is the same impact as getting Jersey MVC bundled.
>
> Or perhaps a more modular Java EE is what we need. so that you can
> plug out JSF if you don't need it and plug in Jersey MVC instead of
> you prefer.
>
> It's less what you get out of the box and more what is officially
> considered "Java EE" standard, because it will drive adoption,
> official tutorials, testing, stability, etc.
>
> or so I think...
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:03 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org
> <mailto:cowwoc_at_bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
> On 22/05/2014 1:12 PM, Eran Medan wrote:
>
> Are there any plans to include Jersey MVC into Java EE 8 / 9
> at some point? Is it on the roadmap?
>
> The only reason I'm using Spring and not full Java EE is that
> I can't put the JAX-RS path on the root without loosing
> "default" handling of html, servlets etc.
> E.g. my REST root has to be /something (e.g. /rest or
> /services) and if I put it at / then I "lose" the ability to
> simply return a JSP, or even a static HTML without leg work
>
> I think Jersey MVC is more "modern" than JSF and will have
> much larger adoption
>
>
> I have nothing against Jersey MVC but I disagree with your
> proposal. Instead of bundling the kitchen sink into Java EE, I'd
> much rather see people plugging Jersey MVC and other features into
> an existing container.
>
> In other words: improve ease of pluggability instead of bundling.
> Why? Because historically, Sun/Oracle never removes anything it
> bundled in the past (which is insane in my book) and as a result
> we're left with a fat pig of a container that benefits no one.
>
> Alternatively, get Sun/Oracle to set an expiration date on
> backwards compatibility and remove features once they expire.
>
> Gili
>
>