RAML - RESTful API modeling language
11–20 of 57 posts
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#12Now all we are missing is a code generator that generates a stubbed site based on the raml spec...
No need to stub it, just generate it on the fly.
Server side too. At least for quickly iterating and hand implement only the methods that require special handling.
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#13Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#14I thought everything you needed to write a REST API client is included in the media-type specification and the rel profile?
For example, the spec for the HTML media-type details that link elements with the rel type of "stylesheet" should be resolved by HTTP GET.
My understanding was that (in the example given) you write a spec for your music description media-type e.g. MUSICML, and register it with IANA (because media-types MUST be registered with a central authority). Then your client only need make a HTTP OPTIONS request to see that the Content-Type e.g. vnd.example.com/musicml+v1.0 and the methods allowed on that resource.
As long at the client uses the described rel profiles appropriate to the media-type MUSICML e.g. the spec specifies that the rel type "play" should HTTP GET the specified WAV file and play it in the client, then the server owner is free to modify the API endpoints as they wish.
I never understood why people insist in adding more layers of cruft on top of a perfectly adequate transfer protocol (HTTP) that is almost always worse and brittle than what the existing protocol already provides.
(don't get me wrong, I appreciate that hardly anyone does rest properly, but that doesnt mean WSDL-flavour-of-the-month will have as much uptake as HTTP itself!)
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#15Now all we are missing is a code generator that generates a stubbed site based on the raml spec...
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#16Is there any reason to think that this will be better than wsdl style descriptions? To wit, WADL tried this, but it seems to have stalled heavily. I should add I do not find WSDL/WADL as horrible as it could be. There is something nice about being able to generate a client in one of any given number of languages that can hit a service. Sorta sucks when you can't do that with a traditional workflow in REST.
I never thought I'd say this, but I actually had fewer problems with CORBA and ONC RPC based systems than SOAP/WSDL based web services. Probably because they were so limiting that the interfaces tended to be quite straightforward - rather than the baroque approach often favoured by "enterprise" web services.
I will happily sacrifice a bit of development time for something that is much easier to troubleshoot - give me RESTful web services any day.
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#17Man, that page is hard to read.
Did you try mouse-hovering over paragraphs?
I found the contrast of colours on the website almost unreadable.
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#18I dont understand what the purpose of this is. I thought the whole point of REST is that it is discoverable at runtime. If you have an "API Spec" doesnt that mean the server owner is now beholden to that spec; that changes to their resources would break compatability with any client written to conform to the spec? I thought everything you needed to write a REST API client is included in the media-type specification a…
Yes. This is about the kind of pseudo-REST that is sometimes called RESTful and has nothing to do with REST as it iis just a plain HTTP-based API.
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#19Man, that page is hard to read.
Re: RAML - RESTful API modeling language
#20I'm happy that Mulesoft are getting on the "better, human readable API DSL" bandwagon. It's very important.
At Apiary we found that embedding one format (Markdown, for human-readable documentation) into another format (YAML, for structured parseable data) is hard for the consumer, tough for the text editors/IDEs/syntax highlighters and ultimately useless. That's why apiblueprint.org is PURE markdown, that displays well on GitHub, has great syntax-highlighting support in your editor - and is just as parseable (since we ship an MIT-licensed parser with it).
I wish we could've united on a single format, but I guess the stronger will win and a little competition is always good for the end-users.