Yes, +1 :-)
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@...>
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 -
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.
[jsr339-experts] Re: application/json-home