On 3/10/2014 7:06 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi
On 07/03/14 05:24, Gary Gregory wrote:
Hi All,
I'd like to use a CXF dynamic client to call a RESTful service. I also
want
to formally describe the RESTful service with a standard-based file.
My first choice was WSDL 2.0 since it is a standard.
Creating a client with JaxWsDynamicClientFactory fails with a WSDL 2.0
file. Is WSDL 2.0 on the roadmap?
Next up is WADL, an almost standard. I do not see any WADL samples in
2.7.10 or 3.0.0-m2.
Creating a WADL client with JaxWsDynamicClientFactory fails.
Can you please provide some guidance WRT WSDL 2.0, WADL, and dynamic
clients?
IMHO WADL is a better language for describing REST applications, it is
richer and more complete. I believe WSDL 2.0 is optimized for describing
WS services. I recall checking its RS binding and looking at the
generated code and I thought at a time it was rather limited. I think it
is difficult to have a single language describing adequately two
different styles.
I'm not a big fan of a definition language like WADL or WSDL to describe
REST applications. Firstly, a well written REST API doesn't need a
definition language. IMO, it encourages too much of the "old" mindset
of RPC when clients should be thinking more about HATEOAS and self
describing messages. It also seems to encourage developers to override
the meaning of HTTP verbs, headers, and/or status codes. Developers
should focus on human documentation for their web interfaces.
Javascript, Python, PHP, etc. developers won't know or want to know
WADL/WSDL and looking at this big W*DL document can be daunting,
overwhelming, or just plain confusing. What it boils down to IMO, if
you feel the need to have a definition language, stay with SOAP and WS-*.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
