I would also say that this should happen in a 1.1.0 release since this is a major change
in supported bits.
On Jun 9, 2013, at 10:41, Kris Borchers <kborcher(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I'm not sure deprecation is necessary but I would vote with Bruno
to just leave the REST bits as is and ensure nothing else depends on them. Then we just
make a note in the README that we have discontinued development and support on them. Then
remove any references from
AeroGear.org and only talk about our other server side bits.
On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:03, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
> Ok, I almost had a heart attack here :) I'd say leave the REST bits as is and
give to people a choice.
>
> -
> abstractj
>
> On Jun 9, 2013, 10:57 AM, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>
>> >Deprecate?! Why?! Do we have a lightweight MVC to replace?
>> I should have written, deprecate the RESTful part of AeroGear controller, as this
is really what has been discussed.
>> If it makes sense to keep the MVC parts we can certainly do that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 June 2013 15:51, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
>>> Aloha Daniel,
>>>
>>>
>>>> So how do we make it visible that we have deprecated
AeroGear-Controller?
>>>
>>> Deprecate?! Why?! Do we have a lightweight MVC to replace?
>>>
>>> -
>>> abstractj
>>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2013, 8:25 AM, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>>>
>>>> Originally, AeroGear Controller was an MVC only implementation, where
requests could be forwarded to different types of views. Later we added support for
RESTful endpoints which was very basic to start with, but more and more feature requests
have come which is the reason for creating this email.
>>>>
>>>> We did not set out to implement the RESTful support our selves, instead
the goal was to use RestEasy but as we required to be able to programmatically add
endpoints which was not an option at the time (but support for this does now exist in
RestEasy).
>>>>
>>>> AeroGear controller's REST support started out very simple but as
time passed more request for things that are taken for granted in a JAX-RS implementation
were being asked for. We were moving toward something equivalent to a JAX-RS
implementation with regards to what we supported. Adding more of these features added to
the complexity of the Controller as we needed to figure out good ways to provide the
features requested, and this also brings up the question if we should be doing this. The
controller is not specific to mobil, as any backend can be used with the client SDKs.
Also, there are plenty of options to implement RESTful backends, in Java using RestEasy
for example, or in a different language.
>>>>
>>>> And after some discussions it has been decided that we should focus are
efforts in other places when it comes to our server side offerings, for example the
Unified Push Server and SimplePush Server etc.
>>>>
>>>> So how do we make it visible that we have deprecated AeroGear-Controller?
>>>>
>>>> A clear notice in the README.md is a good start. Should we mark every
class as deprecated as well?
>>>>
>>>> These are just suggestions and if you have other ideas please let us
know.
>>>>
>>>> /Dan
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev