Hi
WADL can only describe simple multipart payloads, those which have plain
parameters. In fact WADL spec itself does not say anything about
multiparts, but I think it mentions regular form payloads.
I think what happens there is that a WADL generator defaults to a form
payload media type to express the fact that it is supposed to be a
simple Multipart payload only.
I think it is fair to say WADL is limited to how it can describe
multiparts, which is expected given that a multipart payload can have an
arbitrary number of parts of different types.
I'll need to play a bit with your example and see if some minor
improvements can be applied, possibly in XOP cases, etc
Cheers, Sergey
On 25/06/14 13:24, priya wrote:
Hello ,
Please take a look at my posting below and let me know your thoughts. If it
is the incapability of WADL to define the request/response parameter types
in case of multipart, then that definitely seems to be a weak point of REST
based webservices. Is there any enhancements or future work foreseen in this
area? or I am missing something.
We need to evaluate between REST and SOAP based approach for developing
webservices, this incapability of WADL could definitely score more points
for SOAP than REST because of more descriptive WSDL. On the other hand REST
really has other features that makes it a more suitable choice of selection
and we want to leverage the benefits of REST in this case.
Thanks in advance,
Priya
--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Best-way-to-send-and-receive-a-document-from-a-resource-method-in-rest-based-webservice-tp5745338p5745553.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
