Health of the project?


I am wondering about the health of this project. The activity level seems quite low. I’ve opened a number of issues in the spec repo with barely any reply. Its there an active core group actively working on the spec?


@usarid Care to reply to this very important question?


Hi @elevy , my name is Damian Martinez and I’m one of the initial contributors of the RAML spec.

Thanks for all the comments and issues you opened at github. We truly appreciate your contributions and although some other pressing matters have prevented us from getting to respond to those, I can guarantee you that they were read and appreciated.

We will be kicking off the RAML 1.0 candidate discussion in the near future, and we will be having those discussions openly in the issues page at the repo. If you have the time to discuss those changes, I’m sure that your contributions will help to make RAML 1.0 even better and useful than it already is.


Hi @elevy and @ddossot – as Damian indicated, the core workgroup has been working on collecting the numerous suggestions for RAML 1.0, and we’ll be discussing them in the open here very soon to finalize our thoughts and the community’s, before solidifying them into the latest spec. In the meantime the number of supporting projects just keeps growing, and the number of companies adopting RAML internally keeps growing too. Despite its being August, it’s fair to say you can expect a fairly large jump in activity in the next few days and weeks. And thanks for your contributions!


Thanks @damipoo and @usarid for your answers, and all the efforts around RAML!

As v 1.0 is being worked, let’s also create a migration guide from 0.8 so people don’t get blocked in the old version with no clear path ahead.




Folks, thank you all for replying. Apologies for the radio silence. I was on vacation last week. I am looking forward to 1.0. I am glad there are folks still working on it. I been pleased with RAML. There are just a few rough edges that need some polish.


Related to the current discussion, having some grooming of pending pull requests would be great… Here are 11 pending pull requests on one of the RAML projects: Some luv needed here :wink:



can we get some update on the RAML 1.0 status?


I second that. I’ve spent the last few days learning RAML, as I need to design an large API asap, but I don’t really want to start without the 1.0 features like types: and global examples.

Any idea of a time frame?


yes, status update please!


I agree, a status update would be nice. I’m currently evaluating RAML and it looks very promising. But I would not like to go with a project that has low activity.


+1 for a status Update … :slight_smile:
I am just writing a spec for a rather large API in 0.8. But would love to see a 1.0 release and the tooling to support that.

But, thank you so far for raml and whats there already.


Hi guys,

+1 for all of you :wink: I’ll try to give you an update on our blog in the next couple of weeks. So stay tuned and I am really sorry for the delay on that.



Can’t wait… I too am “waiting” on the 1.0 to formally finalize on using RAML over other options, as the 1.0 seems to bring in just about everything we need for large scale API design/development. Assuming we can resolve the HATEOAS links situation with it, and handle the ability to provide names for generated output of things like SDKs, server side code… RAML 1.0 will surely be a game changer.


Any update yet?

I’m really convinced that version 1.0 will be exactly what I’m needing!


@christian_vogel , any word on that post from last month? It would be great to get a broad idea of the timeline for 1.0.


Nothing is finalised yet. There has to be things done before, such as looking what kind of impact the changes for 1.0 do have on the existing tooling. It’s a lot effort since there are quite significant changes.

All of you hopefully agree with me by saying that, it is better to look at every angle, specify something which really brings value and RAML to the next stage. However, IMHO, making significant changes to quickly and with a timeline behind would force to expose something incomplete and perhaps that would be not in everyones favour.

Please bear with us a little bit more where I try to update you with everything new, but do not hesitate to contribute to the issues we currently have for the 1.0 spec with your ideas. And as I said, as soon as I have more concrete information, I will be more than happy to share it with everyone.