On 4/11/07, Jerome Louvel <jerome.louvel_at_noelios.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dhanji,
>
> I am all for a usable API. Usable in the sense that target applications
> would *only* need to rely on this JSR API to be developed. Then these
> applications should be easily deployable into containers such as JAX-WS,
> Servlet or Restlet.
Jerome,
This is a good stated goal. We should use this (or something similar) to vet
anything we come up with regard to bloat or abstraction creep (that I think
some of us fear the spi will lead to).
In any case, I think the spi is a conversation we should be having MUCH
later. The application contract (the framework) and common use scenarios
need to be worked out clearly first.
> Sorry I missed your reply before sending the other email about the recent
> JSR title change. javax.web.rs is good too, javax.rws (RESTful Web
> Services)
> could be another option more inline with javax.jws.
Yep, actually I'd lean away from javax.net.rs as javax.net is a
well-established low-level api (SocketFactory, HttpsURLConnection etc.).
javax.rws or any variant sounds good.
Paul/Marc: Out of curiosity, what exactly was ASF's objection? The comment
seemed to indicate they didnt want jsr311 to be perceived as THE rest
framework.
Does this mean they expect other standards/frameworks around rest web
services? Or that they feel rest is broader than just web services (in which
case could we do something like: javax.rest.ws?)
Anyway, dont want to sidetrack the discussion with such trivia as this. We
can work thru this later.
Dhanji.