https://www.w3.org/Submission/wadl/#x3-90002.4
states the WADL grammar "acts as a container for definitions of the
format of data exchanged during execution..." - this implies the
'wadl:representation'.
These other parameters should really refer to some existing primitive
types defined in XML schema.
I don't think it is realistic or worth the effort to go the route of
introspecting schema types in case the non-representation parameters
decide to refer to some of WADL grammar elements and then adding all
these various BeanVal annotations because as I said IMHO it will
overload what WADL grammar is for.
If WADL submission ever gets further and we see the future versions
saying yes the non-representation parameters can refer to WADL grammar
then we can revisit this enhancement request.
Adding only @Valid seems realistic though
Sergey
On 25/08/16 13:28, Vjacheslav V. Borisov wrote:
2016-08-25 15:55 GMT+04:00 Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>:
Linking schema elements to non representation parameters is not going to
work for sure.
It overloads the idea that the schema elements represent the in/out
payloads.
WADL Parameter Definition contains also "type" paremeter - optionally
indicates the type of the parameter as an XML qualified name, defaults to
xsd:string.
https://www.w3.org/Submission/wadl/#x3-270002.12.2
so i think linking to custom simple type is allowed.
But implemeting adding annotations to query parameters is much more
difficult.
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
