" as soon as Andrew loses interest in keeping it up to date.” ;-) I was never interested in keeping it up to date in the first place but I can’t stand doing development without API documentation, a necessary first step to coding to the API.
I do like your idea about changes to the API not being complete until they have been implemented into the JSON spec. On 12 Jan 2015, at 12:46 pm, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: Barry Warsaw writes: > My big question is how to make sure that the swagger spec doesn't > get out of date to the implementation. Doesn't Andrew's use case answer that? I mean, if the Swagger spec is out of date, the tests based on it should fail. If the tests don't fail, they're incomplete anyway, and that's a different problem that no spec language can solve for you. As a matter of process, if Swagger is readable enough, we make it *the* spec, and you don't accept pull requests for the REST implementation without a patch to the spec. If Swagger isn't usable in that fashion, I suppose it will go away again like WADL as soon as Andrew loses interest in keeping it up to date. ;-) _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/andrew.stuart%40supercoders.com.au Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
