[jsr339-experts] Re: application/json-home

From: Bill Burke <bburke_at_redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:18:51 -0500

On 2/3/2013 1:31 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> On 03.02.2013, at 19:07, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
>> Jan - I keep suffering from not reading the messages carefully - you are referring to the acceptance within your own project, which I guess is a good indication of the usefulness of this media type - sorry;
> Hey, no problem. You are right anyhow.
>> I'm with Marek though and I saw you had agreed to his proposal; I'd also suggest to do the same for WADL media type - whatever people say we are seeing WADL being useful to users, I'm sure the same is the case in RI...
> Well, yes. I am against WADL as a design time contract, but it is a great 'tool' for server-side stuff, e.g. generating test. It could also be a *runtime* form language (which would be RESTful) ... so I am not against the media type :-)

I'm 100% against the proliferation of WADL in any way, shape, or form...
:) Users want such a thing so they can implement RPC-like protocols.
I've seen it first hand.

When users ask for WADL support, I say, well, contribute and maintain it
yourself. Or, I send them a link to Jersey if they are really
persistent about it

Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat