31 Dec
2008
31 Dec
'08
10:40 a.m.
Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Wouldn't this be easily written in WSDL or WADL?
I believe it would be useful.
For WSDL, It'd be WSDL 2, not WSDL 1 (which almost could only do soap).
There has been a lot of criticism about WADL (e.g, [1]) as a way of
putting RPC-ishness into something that should not be RPC-ish. So I
would prefer to follow the "hypermedia way" as ATOM does.
Nevertheless, WADL is useful for people who want to auto generate their
strongly-coupled clients so it is indeed an option to expose.
I still have to dig into it. RESTlet seems to support it out of the box.
We can expose it somewhere like /wadl and link this URI in the previous
cited "service document"
-Fabio
[1] http://bitworking.org/news/193/Do-we-need-WADL