On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> IMO, using HTTP/GET to access the RPC style services is just a poor-man's
>>> web service. Don't go deeper to support complex types, don't try to support
>>> POST, because that will reinvent the wheels that either WS-*, REST, or
>>> JSONRPC already handles.
>>
>> Support for http/get is certainly the one i'd like to see us
>> supporting first. The big reason why this is more useful than web
>> services or similar POX is it can use JSON so becomes more useful to
>> all the common browser tool kits. Its not jsonrpc as a lot of things
>> don't need or support that, and this also would work with jsonp so
>> would work cross domain.
>>
>>> If you don't like the JAX-RS annotations to provide the @name for the
>>> parameters, maybe we can just support arg0, arg1, ..., argN or being
>>> positional. Anyway, JAX-WS/JAXB seems to have the "arg" conventions.
>>
>> Ok that seems reasonable to also have in the default wireFormat. So
>> that wireFormat could do the parameter mapping as:
>>
>> First if the binding configuration contains a mapping from query
>> parameter name to operation parameter then use that. Otherwise if the
>> service interface or impl uses jaxrs annotations to name the
>> parameters then use that mapping, otherwise if the query parameters
>> are name arg0, arg1 etc than use those names for the mapping,
>> otherwise use the order in the query string.
>>
>> Sound ok?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Sounds good, BTW, as it seems that we are reaching consensus, and we
> are going to have things modularized as different
> operationSlectors/wireFormats, is there any reason why can't we
> collaborate on enhancing the RESt binding, instead of going into the
> direction where we have to maintain two very similar bindings (REST
> and HTTP ) ? Anyway, I'm going to look into merging this functionality
> in the REST binding in the next couple days.
>
If you really want to have all this is in just a single binding then
why not call it binding.http? Merging this function into binding.rest
makes no sense at all. REST is not RPC.
...ant
