> -----Original Message----- > From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:31 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: In JAX-RS, what do you think distinguishes CXF from Jersey? > > 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.
Ok, I suppose that's a distinction, but is there any real impact either way from that difference? > 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
