Yes, sounds good to me.
/Heiko
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 12:55 -0400, Ryan J. McDonough wrote:
> 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
>