Re: Welcome to JSR 311

From: Dhanji R. Prasanna <>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:40:25 +1000

On 4/12/07, Roy T. Fielding <> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Ryan Heaton wrote:
> > I would be surprised if there was anybody that is part of this EG that
> > is under the illusion that we are trying to create anything more than
> > "a new form of application deployment mechanism." Nobody is trying to
> > limit whatever REST may be.
> >
> > Personally, I don't feel that by putting these classes and interfaces
> > in a package called "rest" is implying that they encapsulate the whole
> > REST architectural style, nor do I feel it would imply Sun's ownership
> > of the style.
> Because Sun has aggressively enforced the use and interpretation
> of trademarks within the class names of the APIs. So, while you
> may have a reasonable opinion in isolation, I have actual text from
> Sun lawyers that says that Sun, at least, disagrees with your opinion.
> I don't see any reason why I should give Sun something that they
> have refused to give anyone else. In any case, as I said, it is
> very unlikely that this API will be RESTful, in spite of the name.
> I think the API needs to earn its own way, in its own time, and
> then people can choose to apply whatever adjectives to it that are
> applicable when it is finished.


This sheds whole new light on the matter--it was not clear to me (and I
assume the others in the EG who were pursuing this topic) that this was the
source of ASF's objection. REST is your name, you've the right to make
whatever statement (or censure) with it you choose.

I was under the impression that ASF did not want jsr311 to be associated
with REST because they had something else in the cooker (or atleast in
mind), not that a javax namespace should not ever contain REST for
other-than-technical reasons.
Anyway all clear as mud now!! jk..


> I'd just like to see a sensible answer to the question "in what
> > package are these classes located?" It makes more sense to use the
> > name "rest" in for this, since that's the name of the architectural
> > style we refer to in all our discussions and design. Why is "rs" any
> > better? Isn't it short for "rest" anyway?
> Because it isn't a REST API. Marketing does not make it so.
> I don't care what the API is called so long as people call it
> something other than REST. And that does include the class names.
> "rs" or JAX-RS or Jersey or JARWS or Fred are all names that can
> be reasonably distinguished from the architectural style, so I
> don't care what they might be short for.
> In any case, this matter has been decided. It was a precondition
> for starting the JSR that the API be given a name other than REST
> or RESTful such that the API can be readily distinguished from the
> style and the adjective used to describe it.
> ....Roy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail: