@zauberfinger Yes you could. I would have preferred it to include a non-annotation-based core, but JAX-RS 2 gets closer
1
@tedneward :-) But since when has that stopped anyone from bitching about it?
1
@tedneward Yes and no: JAX-RS has no dependency on the Servlet API, even though it can be deployed to a servlet container
@tedneward But that ignores the fact that JSF is the very poster child of unRESTfulness
1
@tedneward It was just politics: Java EE already has a Web framework, JSF, so JAX-RS can't have one
1
@tedneward I agree that a new Servlet spec would have been better than a separate spec, but that's done
1
LOL RT @tedneward Good Lord. Using sticks and stones to pound out 1s and 0s is easier than using JSF.
9
@tedneward Why two ways? I just want to use one Web framework, JAX-RS
1
@tedneward But that's an entirely usable option, and way superior to something like JSF :-)
1
@tedneward That's exactly the point: There is no such difference :-) E.g. take a look at the RESTful service support in Spring MVC
2
@tedneward But there does not seem to be any out-of-the-box support for handling of form data & generation of HTML
2
According to to @marek_potociar's Devoxx talk, no MVC in JAX-RS 2.0. Extremely disappointing. Pointers to EG discussions about this, anyone?
1
@LarsFischer The Facebook requirement is solely a @spotify thing, nothing to do with @sonos. And I agree it sucks
@luebken @mwessendorf My setup is quite old though. No problem, this stuff doesn't age
@luebken @mwessendorf I have two paired S5s (now called Play:5 I think) and a ZonePlayer to connect to the home stereo
@luebken play everything everywhere, even in parallel. Perfect for non-single households /cc @mwessendorf