On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Do we really want to allow arbitrary SCA services to be exposed to be > RESTful? REST (resource-oriented) is quite different from RPC > (operation-oriented). IMO, the component has to be designed following the > RESTful style where we might have a few different options: > > * Use an interface that is compatible with the Collection pattern > * Use JAX-WS annotations to customize the mapping > > Thanks, > Raymond
Good question. In SCA JMS land, for example, you can use an interface that includes just onMessage() if you want to get close to the binding protocol or you can use some arbitrary interface and map to it. Now REST is slightly different as there are get/put etc. semantics involved. . I'm not keen on creating more work than absolutely necessary but maybe a way to answer this is to ask what if we did allow an arbitrary interface. What rules would that interface have to obey in order to operate in a RESTfull way? The default answer is I guess the rules/configuration that JAX-RS describes. Which means the binding has to do quite a bit of work to fill in the blanks in terms of the kind of features that JAXRS would provide. Simon
