Also, the 0.1 version is just because this is the first release but I think the quality is at least equal to CXF/Restlet in terms of JAX-RS support (even beyond what the TCK tests).
I went and looked at: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-versioning I didn't see anything that said we couldn't declare a release with a 1.0 in front of it while still in incubation. I think that's something to consider if it would ease the end users' concerns about APIs changing, and of course if the community is comfortable with the external APIs staying the same. I don't mean to jump the gun so to speak, but for the next release (after we address a good number of JIRAs and any feedback after 0.1), we could move the version number up more than .1. Thoughts? On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Bryant Luk<[email protected]> wrote: > I would suggest looking at: > http://incubator.apache.org/wink/docs/Apache_Wink_User_Guide.pdf for > the above and beyond JAX-RS features. The source code base is also of > course Apache licensed compared to Jersey/Restlet. Compared to CXF, > Wink is specifically focused on REST applications (which can be a good > or bad thing depending on what you want). I don't know how extensible > Jersey/Restlet are, but I think Wink is simple to extend and customize > if need be. > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Davanum Srinivas<[email protected]> wrote: >> Team, >> >> Here's some feedback on twitter....so WDYT? Why/How are we better than the >> competition? >> >> @mraible - tried Apache Wink? - http://incubator.apache.org/wink/ >> @dims Nope, but a 0.1 release in incubation doesn't seem like something I >> should recommend to clients. ;-) >> @mraible - i understand. but fyi, they did pass the JAX-RS TCK - >> http://bit.ly/SjRTx >> @dims So why is it better than Jersey, Restlet or CXF? >> >> thanks, >> dims >> > > > > -- > > - Bryant Luk > -- - Bryant Luk
