Marc,
I think this a reasonable approach. So we'll table these discussions
for now and revisit it down the line.
Ryan-
On Oct 16, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Marc Hadley wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Ryan J. McDonough wrote:
>>
>>> A client API would be nice, although I'm not sure the annotation-
>>> driven approach makes as much sense as on the server side. But
>>> unless I'm mistaken, anything we'd come up with would have to be
>>> created in a hurry, and I don't believe there's a good enough
>>> chance something very good would be the result.
>>>
>>> My vote would be to stick to the original plan and postpone this
>>> to another JSR.
>>
>> Heiko brings up a great point about the TCK. As we develop the
>> TCK, we're more than likely going to start encountering some type
>> of common means of calling the server side code. So one has to
>> ask, if we have to build this stuff anyway in order to provide a
>> TCK, why not think about formalizing the effort as well?
>>
> Its a good point about the TCK and I agree that we'll get some good
> experience building that. However, I'd prefer that we see how that
> code turns out before we add a client API as a formal deliverable
> of the JSR. I propose we add an issue re a client API and plan to
> take a look at the TCK test client code once we make some progress
> on that. Sound reasonable ?
>
> Marc.
>
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
>