Hi David
On 24/10/13 16:11, KARR, DAVID wrote:
To both maintainers and users, what do you think distinguishes the JAX-RS
implementation in CXF with Jersey?
I'd say that real evidence and experience is more informative than "feelings".
IMHO comparing JAX-RS implementations alone is not really interesting
these days.
What drove us from the get go (meaning the point of time where we
started doing an RS frontend in addition to the established WS one) was
the idea of CXF supporting various styles of doing web services really
well, so that we could diversify CXF and have a wider community of
users. The element of trying to matching what Jersey could do was there
at the early days as we had some hard time getting the project supported
in the 1st place, this is no longer the case.
This comparison can be of more interest to the users who only would like
to stay within the pure JAX-RS without trying any of CXF extensions. To
that end I can say CXF JAX-RS is implemented as a CXF filter sitting
behind the servlets, while Jersey and RestEasy are, AFAIK, servlet filters.
A year or so ago I'd probably say if you need to align with Java EE only
by working with a complete package, then Jersey or RestEasy can do
better, but I know now we have TomEE+ and also users using CXF RS with
the established EE containers - the latter though means that such users
can only get a support on this list and via a custom subscription with
one of the companies offering a CXF support.
Today, for me, it is all about making the RS project practically
successful, and so that it can work well with the rest of CXF, as
opposed to trying to make sure it does not lose to Jersey or RestEasy
which are of course are good implementations on its own.
Sergey
