I love Jersey,
Once you get the very simple model it works like a charm with non of
the hocus-pocus that restlets have.
I do use it with Wicket projects, but I have not yet had to integrate
the two because usually where I have a service I want to expose I
don't have the UI... I typically use two separate war builds.
- Brill
On 3-Apr-09, at 5:20 PM, Erik van Oosten wrote:
Jonathan,
If parameter handling is easy to do this in Jersey, then that is
probably better then Restlet (well v1.x at least). I found that the
hard part of Restlet. Working with all kinds of resource types is
very powerfull in Restlet.
Regards,
Erik.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
well, i'd be the first to admit i don't know either of these two
products
deeply, but for the kinds of applications i have for web services,
i found
jersey to have really easy, transparent support for request parameter
processing. you just annotate some parameters, create a jaxb schema
and add
an @Path attribute and you've pretty much got a web service.
although it
looks like a nice architecture that sticks to REST terminology, i
at least
couldn't find how restlet made some of this grunt work easy (but
then maybe
i missed that somehow).
Alexandru Objelean wrote:
Jonathan, can you elaborate? Why do you think jersey is better?
Have you
any experience of integrating it with wicket?
Thanks!
Jonathan Locke wrote:
interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services.
i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket.
Casper Bang-3 wrote:
restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes
absolutely
no
sense.
While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily
exclude
the
other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces
HTTP
rather
than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC
handlers
for
everything).
In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a
standard
templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very
high
scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this
approach
is
that you are stuck to the classic templating model and
components don't
really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up
manually.
So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the
possebility
of
Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps
just a
programming model adopted after Wicket.
/Casper
--
Erik van Oosten
http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
