Re: Welcome to JSR 311

From: Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:42:25 +0200

Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
>> +1. This should be more intuitive than learning SAAJ for instance.
>> I am always for anything that one can learn almost entirely via
>> Javadoc and hands-on (which 11 packages may make difficult even if
>> half can be ignored by the lay developer).
> Oh no not SAAJ! If we end up like SAAJ we will have truly failed :-)
> Given that we can limit our interaction with the DOM API i think we
> might be on safer ground :-)
> I think the API looks like it is starting achieve one goal, which is
> to help focus discussion.
> hehe. =)
> Yes I suppose my point is that it seems like a quite-lean api on the
> whole, so why the package explosion?

I suppose if you squint and to avoid the SPI packages (and then there is not really an explosion. Perhaps we
should have split the javadoc into a separate API and SPI to avoid the
'assault on the eyes' ?

>> Is there a criteria for choosing what containers get a spi?
> Not sure i understand the question, can you give an example?
> My bad, i misunderstood Marc to mean there were specific containers you
> wanted to support in the spi.
> We found the container SPI very useful and quick to integrate new
> containers. So we thought it would be useful to present this to the
> EG and see it this is a worth while thing to do i.e. is there a
> benefit? or is it better to leave this type of thing to each
> implementation?
> I wasnt able to find a container impl based on the spi in the files on
> there a good example somewhere? I think seeing
> it in use would give us a better idea as to its implementability.

OK. I will come up with some examples and send it to the list.

> Just a couple of trivial qns:
> The packages are under <> rather than
> javax.jws--is this only because jsr311 is not a WSDL-style webservice?

Marc can probably answer this and the other questions much better that
I, but i will give it a go.

IMHO i would say jws is very much associated with JSRs 101, 109 and 181
and SOAP-based Web services that can be described by WSDL.

> The packages are named, rather than as in the
> initial proposal--any reason for this change?

We did not want to refer explicitly to 'rest' and thus imply that it was
*the* REST-based API for Java.

See Apache's voting comment:

"On 2007-02-17 Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with the following
The ASF thanks the spec lead for making the changes to the title and
package name as noted in a mail to the EC on 2/16/07 - this was a key
requirement for us."


| ? + ? = To question
    Paul Sandoz