On Sep 5, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
> However, since I recall Paul saying we want jsr311 to be a complete
> *usable* API it might be worth considering if/whether we want to
> integrate jsr303 in some (even optional) way.
Without being knowledgeable about JSR 303 in any meaningful way, I
just want to quickly express my opinion that this should *definitely*
be optional (or deferred to a future version of JAX-RS).
Stefan
--
Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/