On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Luciano > > Not sure what you mean by deprecating here. Are you suggesting getting > rid of binding.http altogether or keeping binding.http but using the > rest binding code to implement it? >
I just want to maintain one binding, instead of 2 as they are doing pretty much very similar things. > My concern about binding.http is that It's not clear (to me at least) > what's going to happen with binding.http at OASIS. There is an old > draft spec but I don't seen any discussion about whether this is going > to be further developed or whether something else will be created in > its place. Assuming that OASIS have a binding.http it would seem > sensible for Tuscany to have an implementation. > > Simon > I think we have learned a lot during the implementation of the REST binding, and it's a very good opportunity to provide OASIS an updated draft with proposed changes based on these leanings. Having said that, if we call this binding binding.rest versus bindinh.http and proxy the "other binding" to the concrete one, I'm fine with both ways. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
