RE: Re: Goal: POJO-based

From: Hao He <>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:30:55 +1000

hi, Stefan,

I think we still are. Although this is a Java API, the RESTful services are still consumed by many others.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Tilkov []
Sent: Mon 4/23/2007 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Goal: POJO-based
On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Hao He wrote:

> hi, Jerome,
> I guess that the issue is more at the architectural level rather
> than at the API level. Surely you can model resources using POJOs,
> but it will leak Java semantics. This would cause interoperability
> problems to others on other platforms. I know I am very XML biased,
> but isn't the idea of XML is to have a platform/language
> independent data format?

But we're not concerned with language independence, are we? After all
this is a Java API.

I have some understanding for your concerns, given that I positively
hate the approach taken by most Web services toolkits, including .NET
(defining service contracts in the programming language, i.e. code-
first vs. contract-first). But we don't *have* a contract -- I have
no objections to WADL as long as it's a by-product and not a pre-

Stefan Tilkov,
> Regards,
> Hao
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerome Louvel []
> Sent: Mon 23/04/2007 17:19
> To:
> Subject:  RE: Goal: POJO-based
> Hi Hao,
> In the REST style, the same resource can have multiple  
> representations: XML,
> JSON, HTML, etc. I don't think that designing a RESTful application  
> around
> XML documents (as a contract) it the only or best way. Relying on  
> POJOs to
> model resources seems a good approach to me.
> Best regards,
> Jerome
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Hao He []
>> Envoyé : lundi 23 avril 2007 09:10
>> À :
>> Objet : Goal: POJO-based
>> I have a mixed feeling about this goal here.  On one hand,
>> the goal of the Web is to integrate with everything.
>> Clearly, a POJO is something valuable and it makes sense to
>> expose it as a Web citizen.  On the other hand, if we think
>> about SOA, the danger is that a developer may use a POJO as
>> the interface contract rather than, say, a predefined XML
>> document. Is this issue in-scope for this API?
>> Hao
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <winmail.dat>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail: