You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wink.apache.org by "Bryant Luk (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/07/09 19:57:15 UTC
[jira] Created: (WINK-69) Consider an Abdera Provider
Consider an Abdera Provider
---------------------------
Key: WINK-69
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69
Project: Wink
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: Common
Reporter: Bryant Luk
There are probably other Providers that we can look at but just bringing this first one out there.
Since Abdera is also used for ATOM support, can we look into writing Apache Wink @Provider code? I'm not suggesting any more standard built-in providers. These should just be a lightweight one/two class addition with some tests.
Maybe we can add an optional module for "nice to have" providers and then maybe add submodules underneath for each provider type? I think we'd have to consider how to package these optional ones up to make it easier on developers.
Not 0.1 blocking.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (WINK-69) Consider an Abdera Provider
Posted by "Jason Dillon (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12730258#action_12730258 ]
Jason Dillon commented on WINK-69:
----------------------------------
Just curious what and Abdera provider would would give Wink other than what is has now?
> Consider an Abdera Provider
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: WINK-69
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69
> Project: Wink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Common
> Reporter: Bryant Luk
>
> There are probably other Providers that we can look at but just bringing this first one out there.
> Since Abdera is also used for ATOM support, can we look into writing Apache Wink @Provider code? I'm not suggesting any more standard built-in providers. These should just be a lightweight one/two class addition with some tests.
> Maybe we can add an optional module for "nice to have" providers and then maybe add submodules underneath for each provider type? I think we'd have to consider how to package these optional ones up to make it easier on developers.
> Not 0.1 blocking.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (WINK-69) Consider an Abdera Provider
Posted by "Hudson (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12750003#action_12750003 ]
Hudson commented on WINK-69:
----------------------------
Integrated in Wink-Trunk-JDK1.5 #127 (See [http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Wink-Trunk-JDK1.5/127/])
Add Apache Abdera Provider
See []
> Consider an Abdera Provider
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: WINK-69
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69
> Project: Wink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Common
> Reporter: Bryant Luk
>
> There are probably other Providers that we can look at but just bringing this first one out there.
> Since Abdera is also used for ATOM support, can we look into writing Apache Wink @Provider code? I'm not suggesting any more standard built-in providers. These should just be a lightweight one/two class addition with some tests.
> Maybe we can add an optional module for "nice to have" providers and then maybe add submodules underneath for each provider type? I think we'd have to consider how to package these optional ones up to make it easier on developers.
> Not 0.1 blocking.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Closed: (WINK-69) Consider an Abdera Provider
Posted by "Bryant Luk (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Bryant Luk closed WINK-69.
--------------------------
> Consider an Abdera Provider
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: WINK-69
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69
> Project: Wink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Common
> Reporter: Bryant Luk
> Assignee: Bryant Luk
> Fix For: 0.2
>
>
> There are probably other Providers that we can look at but just bringing this first one out there.
> Since Abdera is also used for ATOM support, can we look into writing Apache Wink @Provider code? I'm not suggesting any more standard built-in providers. These should just be a lightweight one/two class addition with some tests.
> Maybe we can add an optional module for "nice to have" providers and then maybe add submodules underneath for each provider type? I think we'd have to consider how to package these optional ones up to make it easier on developers.
> Not 0.1 blocking.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Resolved: (WINK-69) Consider an Abdera Provider
Posted by "Bryant Luk (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Bryant Luk resolved WINK-69.
----------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 0.2
Assignee: Bryant Luk
> Consider an Abdera Provider
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: WINK-69
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69
> Project: Wink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Common
> Reporter: Bryant Luk
> Assignee: Bryant Luk
> Fix For: 0.2
>
>
> There are probably other Providers that we can look at but just bringing this first one out there.
> Since Abdera is also used for ATOM support, can we look into writing Apache Wink @Provider code? I'm not suggesting any more standard built-in providers. These should just be a lightweight one/two class addition with some tests.
> Maybe we can add an optional module for "nice to have" providers and then maybe add submodules underneath for each provider type? I think we'd have to consider how to package these optional ones up to make it easier on developers.
> Not 0.1 blocking.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (WINK-69) Consider an Abdera Provider
Posted by "Bryant Luk (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12730359#action_12730359 ]
Bryant Luk commented on WINK-69:
--------------------------------
Other JAX-RS implementations (i.e. CXF) may already have support for ATOM via Abdera. Adding support for Abdera would ease the transition between implementations in case applications are already written. Just removing a "barrier to entry/migration". This can be an area we can collaborate with the CXF folks since these Providers are suppose to be portable.
Something to think about in the future too is to see if we can port the current Wink ATOM implementation so that CXF can pick it up.
> Consider an Abdera Provider
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: WINK-69
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-69
> Project: Wink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Common
> Reporter: Bryant Luk
>
> There are probably other Providers that we can look at but just bringing this first one out there.
> Since Abdera is also used for ATOM support, can we look into writing Apache Wink @Provider code? I'm not suggesting any more standard built-in providers. These should just be a lightweight one/two class addition with some tests.
> Maybe we can add an optional module for "nice to have" providers and then maybe add submodules underneath for each provider type? I think we'd have to consider how to package these optional ones up to make it easier on developers.
> Not 0.1 blocking.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.