On 2/4/2013 8:57 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 04/02/13 13:18, Bill Burke wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I've seen that too; and I've also seen users using it for automating the
> test processes, or making sure they can design the actual data
> representations at the schema level and tying them to @Path (es) instead
> of manually doing it all.
> That said, I don't care really if we get one less constant in MediaType
> class :-), we are much less religious about WADL in CXF, if some users
> find it helpful - that is fine for us...
>
I don't really care about constants either as long as we're not doing
anything more than that around WADL or json-home.
Bill
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com