cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ANNOUNCE] Introducing Microbule...
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:25:32 GMT
That is a music to our ears :-). CXF JAXRS is built on the solid core 
dome by all of the WS work, ex, Oneway CXF JAX-RS extension which will 
become very important going forward IMHO would not be here without WS-RM 
work, etc carried out earlier

Sergey
On 23/11/16 14:21, James Carman wrote:
> Well, folks can use Microbule without knowing anything about CXF.  The only
> thing you write is pure 100% JAX-RS code!  The internals of Microbule are
> somewhat CXF-focused at the moment.  Obviously, I could provide other
> implementation-specific (Jersey, RestEasy, etc.) bindings, but for now I'm
> going to focus on CXF since that's what I tend to enjoy using :)
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi James
>>
>> While I certainly support the idea of having a given framework offering
>> an option for the users to have a 100% portable code, which is a
>> foundation, I also think SpringBoot (I refer to it simply because it was
>> already referred on this thread already :-)) shows why it has become so
>> popular - the last thing they care about is being on some standard line
>> but what they care about is offer the features which will be important
>> for their users and their users are rewarding them back.
>>
>> I've been trying to follow the same path in CXF JAX-RS - offer a solid
>> foundation for people to do 100% portable code, but do try as hard as I
>> can add some extensions - slow at times I guess. I'm def not alone in
>> this approach if we refer to Jersey, RestEasy. I encourage you to do the
>> same with Microbule. Sorry if it sounds a bit controversial, hopefully
>> not too much :-)
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>
>>
>> On 23/11/16 13:00, James Carman wrote:
>>> There have been certain providers in Microbule where I had to dig into
>>> CXF-specific areas in order to implement them (request timeouts that I
>>> wrote last night being one for sure).  I'd like to keep it pure JAX-RS as
>>> much as possible, though.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:21 AM Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> One thing which is worth noting that a portability of JAX-RS 2.0
>>>> Features (and indeed other providers) is only achievable if they are
>>>> also implemented in a portable way...
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergey Beryozkin
>>
>> Talend Community Coders
>> http://coders.talend.com/
>>
>


Mime
View raw message