Uri Sarid

That's pretty cool! Let's not put it into 1.0 at this late stage, but rather pursue the idea through annotations and see if we can come to a relatively general...

You can absolutely do that, just define annotation types that your mocking server will recognize.

Mainly because we need to draw the line somewhere to be able to say we have a complete list of features for RAML 1.0 and publish it (and its parsers)...

Thank **you** for the suggestion and the support!

If you find this approach really working, and can publish it as a library and promote it so it gets popular and gets validated by a broad base of users,...

That will need to go into a new version of RAML, presumably 1.1, right ?

Right now, the last one wins here: but for your example, it wouldn't matter, right? If e.g. the body specifications were different, say two different schemas, then what you're saying...

You could have a schema for errors, something like: ``` js { "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-03/schema", "type": "object", "properties": { "msg": { "type": "string", "enum": [ "access_denied_key", "access_denied_token" ] } } }...

The approach that makes sense to me, and I believe will be the expected behavior, is loosely described as: passing a parameter entails passing a literal ("Monkey" or "[ 1,...

How do you suggest we support it? There isn't a universally-accepted structured protocol established on top of websockets, i.e. you get binary 2-way communications once you establish the websocket and...