Commonly, a language binding will use the extensibility mechanism of that language to provide the flexibility of the REST-based interface, but in a type-safe way. For an object-oriented language like Java, this will commonly mean that interfaces are defined for the resources (which inherit from a generic Resource interface), with methods for defined for the various operations being tunneled through POST. So for CM for example, there would be a WorkItem interface defined, which inherits from Resource. Combining type-safety without compromising the extensibility/evolution provided by a REST interface is what makes the language binding definition interesting.
Cheers, Geoff From: Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 02/03/2010 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [OSLC] Generating language bindings for the OSLC interfaces Sent by: [email protected] Has anyone outlined what those bindings would look like? Don't all the languages already have API for GET/PUT/POST/DELETE? The goal of a REST-based design would be that there is nothing beyond this except the ability to understand the domain-specific resource formats. An RDF library might be useful for this. What else would be useful? Best regards, Martin Martin Nally, IBM Fellow CTO and VP, IBM Rational tel: (949)544-4691 Steve K Speicher---02/03/2010 08:29:16 AM---Andy, For CM domain I see it playing out as #1 as most of the interfaces define From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS To: [email protected] Date: 02/03/2010 08:29 AM Subject: Re: [OSLC] Generating language bindings for the OSLC interfaces Sent by: [email protected] Andy, For CM domain I see it playing out as #1 as most of the interfaces define deeper semantics on REST style hat can't be exposed easily in most commonly available tools that I'm aware of. We see this now with Eclipse Mylyn and their exposure of a consumer Java API. I see JavaScript bindings to be of interest as well. I have not heard of any C#/C++ requests as of yet, though PHP (as a service provider) I have. Now speaking for Rational products that use the CM interfaces, we utilize common code (both Java and JS) which has been manually developed. Regards, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 [email protected] wrote on 02/03/2010 05:14:14 AM: > To use the OSLC interfaces effectively, client programmers need an easy way > to get 3GL language bindings to program against the interface. In > practice, most ALM tools, which are the prime candidates to use the > interfaces, would benefit from either a Java or C# binding. I can imagine > two ways of getting these bindings: > > a) For each interface, someone in the community, or a group of members, > produce the binding by hand and maintain it as the interface evolves > > b) Clients use a set of commonly available tools to generate bindings > > Can someone from each workgroup comment, please, on how this can be > addressed for the interface under development? Which language bindings are > of interest (testing my hypothesis that Java and C# will suffice for most > of the community)? > > Andy Berner > Lead Architect, ISV Technical Enablement and Strategy > IBM Rational Business Development > 972 561-6599 > [email protected] > > Ready for IBM Rational software partner program - > http://www.ibm.com/isv/rational/readyfor.html > > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net
