[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once...
|
Was not there at the F2F but there are a lot of RESTFul interfaces that don't use JSR 311 not sure of the applicability of JSR 311
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
![Inactive hide details for "Jim Sermersheim" ---12/01/2008 02:04:59 AM---I brought this up at the last F2F because I was proposi]()
"Jim Sermersheim" ---12/01/2008 02:04:59 AM---I brought this up at the last F2F because I was proposing that we use JSR 311 (JAX-RS) as the framework with which we build a R
![]()
From: | ![]()
"Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> |
![]()
To: | ![]()
higgins-dev <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
![]()
Date: | ![]()
12/01/2008 02:04 AM |
![]()
Subject: | ![]()
Re: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once... |
I brought this up at the last F2F because I was proposing that we use JSR 311 (JAX-RS) as the framework with which we build a ReSTful service which exposes IdAS. My read of consensus was that using the JSR 311 framework was the right way to go.
The JSR 311 framework requires Java 5 due to its use of annotations.
I assumed this reason would be sufficient for us to make the move forward.
Jim
>>> Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> 11/27/2008 3:27 PM >>>
Since the current build is on 1.4 so what is the rational to change ? I'm not seeing the motivation to change or do we just change things ?
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
![Inactive hide details for Paul Trevithick ---11/26/2008 08:46:29 AM---I’ve been waiting to see if anyone will step forward and]()
Paul Trevithick ---11/26/2008 08:46:29 AM---I’ve been waiting to see if anyone will step forward and argue for why they require 1.4.X support for Higgins 1.1 (specificall
![]()
From: | ![]()
Paul Trevithick <ptrevithick@xxxxxxxxx> |
![]()
To: | ![]()
higgins-dev <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
![]()
Date: | ![]()
11/26/2008 08:46 AM |
![]()
Subject: | ![]()
[higgins-dev] Java 5, going once... |
I’ve been waiting to see if anyone will step forward and argue for why they require 1.4.X support for Higgins 1.1 (specifically). As we discussed in the F2F if someone requires 1.4.X they at least have the option of using Higgins 1.0. Not a great option because so much is progressing in 1.1, but it’s something. Historically Tony of IBM has put forward IBM’s requirement for 1.4.X, but they have been silent on the issue of late.
Unless we hear soon from IBM or others on this point, we’ll take one last poll, and then move to Java 5 for Higgins 1.1.
-Paul _______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
