Hi Sanjiva >> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric approaches such as WADL >> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people interested in POX > WADL can waddle along and defined whatever they want. That doesn't mean we > need to pull this out. If users don't want both let market forces decide > the "winner". +1 FWIW, I was trying to emphasise the difference between WSDL HTTP which is great for describing messaging systems, but shouldn't get mired by being sold as some kind of REST description language. > WSDL's HTTP binding is not about REST! Its about describing how to > exchange WSDL messages over raw HTTP without SOAP. Agreed. PaulReceived on Monday, 18 September 2006 13:15:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:01 UTC