+1, as this wasn't our intention anyways From: jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jaxrs-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of arjan tijms Sent: Freitag, 16. März 2018 18:33 To: jaxrs developer discussions Subject: Re: [jaxrs-dev] MVC Integration It's fine if an extension point is practically only needed by MVC. It's just that, I think, the JAX-RS spec should not outright mention something to be MVC specific or even mention MVC at all (other than maybe in an example). On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I wouldn't be that strict. It might happen that an extension point currently is only needed for MVC but might be beneficial for other scenarios in future. -Markus Hi Arjan, That’s okay, although we should word those integration changes such that they’re not MVC specific. Meaning that MVC should have knowledge about JAX-RS and CDI etc but not the other way around.
So even if the spec changes are practically targeted at MVC, the actual spec text should rephrase them using neutral general text.
The integration changes I was thinking about are more about general enhancements which would be useful for other scenarios as well. Changes required _only_ by MVC should not be added to the JAX-RS specification. If MVC implementations are the only real world users of such a feature, the integration should be added on the JAX-RS and MVC implementation level. -- _______________________________________________ jaxrs-dev mailing list jaxrs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jaxrs-dev
|