Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Friday 01 March 2002 02:48 pm, Paul Prescod wrote:
> I see type safety as being orthogonal to REST. That's why I'm
> creating WRDL. If you want type safety, you should get it. If you
> don't, you can just ignore WRDL.
While I think type *is* orthogonal (as is validation), sooner or
later, *something* has to interpret the data and the overloaded
methods... thereby introducing the notion of "type"...
FWIW. I think WRDL might be damaging to your cause because it makes
things look too much like web services. You might be better off
defining a mechanism for composition thereby allowing abstraction.