On Apr 11, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
>
> 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?)
>
IIRC there were two objections:
- they didn't want there to be confusion between REST (the
architectural style) and the API for developing RESTful Web Services.
- they didn't want an implication that this was *the* API, just *an*
API.
At this stage I don't think there's any scope for a package name with
a "rest" segment.
> Anyway, dont want to sidetrack the discussion with such trivia as
> this. We can work thru this later.
>
Agreed, I don't think the package name is that important. I'd have
liked rest in there so it pops out when scanning a list of packages
but I can live without it.
Marc.
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s