| There is a lot of talk about this idea being SOAP-like, but I disagree. SOAP was insane and its counterpart, WSDL (which is really the part that is most comparable to this idea), was even more insane. But, the basic premise was not bad. It was the execution which sucked by trying to account for every situation, adding namespaces, etc. And if you ever worked with language libs designed to interface with SOAP/WSDL, it would make you slap a bunny. With this idea, however, adding an optional JSON-based descriptor language could be helpful. Key would be to keep it simple, allowing the bare mnimum number of data types, with one simple array structure for collections. Allow object definitions with an infinite number of nesting levels, and that would be it. I wouldn't even get into optional vs required stuff, validation, etc. That stuff should stay at the application level. Why stuff it into the interface layer? From there, it would be easy to develop libraries to generate clients in any language for any API just by feeding it the JSON descriptor. Or (as I think the author intended) just use one universal client that any app can use. For languages that aren't strongly typed anyway, the latter would be fine. Someone mentioned that it would require the server side devs to keep the descriptor in sync with the code. No biggie for apps that already offer client libs in different languages and must keep them up to date anyway. Not to mention there should be some doc that needs to be kept in sync (REST is not typically self documenting in reality). In any event it wouldn't be required. What would be the harm in creating a standard for those apps that choose to use it? |