Comments on: New REST JSR http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/ Life and Technology (non-intersecting) Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:15:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: New JSR to define a high-level REST API for Java « Noelios Consulting http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-9263 New JSR to define a high-level REST API for Java « Noelios Consulting Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:21:03 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-9263 [...] Pete Lacey [...] [...] Pete Lacey [...]

]]> By: Jason Greene http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3686 Jason Greene Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:31:50 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3686 I debunked RMH's JAX-WS FUD long ago http://blogs.jboss.com/blog/jgreene/ I debunked RMH’s JAX-WS FUD long ago

http://blogs.jboss.com/blog/jgreene/

]]> By: Chris M http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3649 Chris M Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:47:22 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3649 I'm probably jumping the gun and should not have said that. I really don't know... but, there is such a strong emphasis on making it *easy* that I wouldn't be surprised by it (plus it seems it might be tied to JAX-WS). But there are actually two good indications that perhaps I'm wrong about the XML to Java mappings: 1) The JSR says... "and also enable low level access in cases where needed by the application." This may mean getting right at the XML. 2) JAXB is not listed under contributions. It seems if they were planning on Java to XML mappings, it would be listed there (like it is for the JAX-WS JSR). All this to say that I was only speculating. I certainly don't want to start any rumors! I’m probably jumping the gun and should not have said that. I really don’t know… but, there is such a strong emphasis on making it *easy* that I wouldn’t be surprised by it (plus it seems it might be tied to JAX-WS).

But there are actually two good indications that perhaps I’m wrong about the XML to Java mappings:

1) The JSR says… “and also enable low level access in cases where needed by the application.” This may mean getting right at the XML.

2) JAXB is not listed under contributions. It seems if they were planning on Java to XML mappings, it would be listed there (like it is for the JAX-WS JSR).

All this to say that I was only speculating. I certainly don’t want to start any rumors!

]]> By: Pete http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3645 Pete Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:15:57 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3645 <i>I’m not so sure that you’ll avoid [XML bindings to data objects] issues in JSR-311 either.</i> If JSR-311 mandates an XML to Java mapping, then they've lost before they've begun. I’m not so sure that you’ll avoid [XML bindings to data objects] issues in JSR-311 either.

If JSR-311 mandates an XML to Java mapping, then they’ve lost before they’ve begun.

]]> By: Marc Hadley's Blog http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3644 Marc Hadley's Blog Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:11:06 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3644 <strong>JSR 311: Java API for RESTful Web Services...</strong> I was planning to wait until after the ballot to blog this but it seems lots of folks have already noticed and blogged about it so I figure I might as well put my 2p in now. Reaction so far...... JSR 311: Java API for RESTful Web Services…

I was planning to wait until after the ballot to blog this but it seems lots of folks have already noticed and blogged about it so I figure I might as well put my 2p in now. Reaction so far……

]]> By: Chris M http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3643 Chris M Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:52:28 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3643 Thanks Pete. I've been using the new JAX-WS 2.1 RI and haven't found it nearly as difficult as RMH has indicated. But maybe 2.1 is just that much better than 2.0 (which is what he tested). I understand Steve Loughran's issues with XML bindings to data objects-- but I'm not so sure that you'll avoid that issue in JSR-311 either. But you should, of course, avoid the issues with RPC-like calls. I've tried many SOAP stacks for contract-first services, and so far, I'd only consider using XFire and JAX-WS 2.1. Speaking of XFire, Dan Diephouse (big committer on XFire) also mentions JSR-311 in his blog: http://netzooid.com/blog/2007/02/14/jsr-311-javaxwsrest/ Anyway, thanks for the reply and links. I always enjoy your blog, even if I don't always agree with it. Thanks Pete. I’ve been using the new JAX-WS 2.1 RI and haven’t found it nearly as difficult as RMH has indicated. But maybe 2.1 is just that much better than 2.0 (which is what he tested).

I understand Steve Loughran’s issues with XML bindings to data objects– but I’m not so sure that you’ll avoid that issue in JSR-311 either. But you should, of course, avoid the issues with RPC-like calls.

I’ve tried many SOAP stacks for contract-first services, and so far, I’d only consider using XFire and JAX-WS 2.1. Speaking of XFire, Dan Diephouse (big committer on XFire) also mentions JSR-311 in his blog: http://netzooid.com/blog/2007/02/14/jsr-311-javaxwsrest/

Anyway, thanks for the reply and links. I always enjoy your blog, even if I don’t always agree with it.

]]> By: Pete http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3637 Pete Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:42:15 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3637 <b>Chris:</b> I'll let others talk for me. <a href="http://www.1060.org/blogxter/publish/5" rel="nofollow">Steve Loughran</a> says it best <a href="http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2005/HPL-2005-83.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, pointing out the flaws in JAX-RPC. And as my colleague, <a href="http://rmh.blogs.com/weblog/" rel="nofollow">Richard Monson-Haefel</a>, points out, <a href="http://rmh.blogs.com/weblog/2006/03/jaxws_is_bad_ba.html" rel="nofollow">JAX-WS isn't that much better</a>. Chris: I’ll let others talk for me. Steve Loughran says it best here, pointing out the flaws in JAX-RPC. And as my colleague, Richard Monson-Haefel, points out, JAX-WS isn’t that much better.

]]> By: Chris M http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3635 Chris M Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:59:21 +0000 http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2007/02/14/new-rest-jsr/#comment-3635 Dare I ask what you think is so screwed up about JAX-WS (besides that it implements WS-*)? Or are you referring to the JAX-WS implementation of RESTful web services? Dare I ask what you think is so screwed up about JAX-WS (besides that it implements WS-*)? Or are you referring to the JAX-WS implementation of RESTful web services?

]]>