"splitting the definition would also further increase the penalty of starting up a new client..."
If the client needs all that stuff, then yes, a fragmented system will be much worse. But this bug was filed because a typical client only needs two or three resource definitions.
If we decide to do this, we can examine existing clients, do measurements, and see how much we improve the common case. One obvious optimization is to define "foo" and "page of foo" in the same WADL file. Another is to put the descriptions of the core resources--bugs, people, projects, maybe a couple others--into the root WADL file along with the service root, and keep everything else in individual WADL files. (Or packaged up into larger themed files--like, all the distro_* resource types could go into the same file.)
"splitting the definition would also further increase the penalty of starting up a new client..."
If the client needs all that stuff, then yes, a fragmented system will be much worse. But this bug was filed because a typical client only needs two or three resource definitions.
If we decide to do this, we can examine existing clients, do measurements, and see how much we improve the common case. One obvious optimization is to define "foo" and "page of foo" in the same WADL file. Another is to put the descriptions of the core resources--bugs, people, projects, maybe a couple others--into the root WADL file along with the service root, and keep everything else in individual WADL files. (Or packaged up into larger themed files--like, all the distro_* resource types could go into the same file.)