Well, I think it means "code against interfaces" so the underlying implementations can be changed. My boss wants that the public API i'm going to write have no external dependencies to third party apps so eventual clients can write only against our API specification.
At least that's was what I understood... On 31/01/2008, Rob Heittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand the concern. (I do find that management > concerns may not always be understandable) It may depend on how he is > defining "dependency." > > If by "no dependencies" he means that you must write an application that > runs inside a J2EE container and cannot include any other code -- no JARs > or classes not created by you, then indeed you are shut out of using > Restlet, or any other reusable code not already supplied as part of J2EE. > This is not something you can fix. You can stop evaluating existing > solutions and start writing ... > > If he means something like "no external dependencies" -- no software that > must be configured outside and in addition to your web application -- then > this is not a problem with Restlet. You can incorporate the appropriate > Restlet JARs in the WEB-INF/lib directory of your web application, and it > will deploy in any J2EE Servlet container without the container operator > having to do anything special or even know what Restlet is. > > - R > > > On 1/31/08, António Mota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi again: > > > > Thanks all for your responses. The main concern now is that my boss > > don't want to use nothing that has dependencies besides J2EE. From his point > > of view, the use of Restlet will imply a dependency to it, right? > > > > -- -- Melhores cumprimentos / Beir beannacht / Best regards António Manuel dos Santos Mota mobile: +353(0)877718363 mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: amsmota msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/amsmota
