[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Date | Thread | Author

[XML-SIG] WSDL library ?

> [T]here are so many levels (see below). Often you
>> see an element type with the same name as a part, with the same name as
>> an operation, with the same name as a port type. You've got four levels
>> to do one thing.    (01)

I heartily agree this is a problem.    (02)

> Another part is using XML Schema as an "abstract type description
>> language". It's a little ridiculous to use a schema language without
>> standard OO notions of "property", "array", "struct" etc. But I'm sure
>> I'd get voted down.    (03)

Jacek of the encoding task force of the XMLP WG posted a really good 
rationale for the current, sub-optimal, situation.    (04)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0209.html    (05)

> Of course it should be possible to refer to an XML schema for
>> *document-oriented* SOAP. But for RPC-oriented SOAP, older IDLs are
>> actually much simpler.    (06)

DCE IDL; it's an ISO standard. :)    (07)

> WSDL 1.2 should be formally split into two languages    (08)

The SAP rep just posted a message asking for this.    (09)

>  2. The interface description language should be as easy to read and
>> write (semantically, not syntactically) as standard IDLs like CORBA and
>> COM IDLs. There is a sense that WSDL is much, much more complicated and
>> this is going to hurt its adoption on the open Internet.    (010)

You wanna get rid of the "abstract" layers?    (011)

>  3. If the interface definition language is to be used both for RPC
>> *and* document-style interfaces then it needs first-class concepts of
>> array and struct, which XML Schema lacks, for RPC-style interfaces.
>> Arguably, using schema for both kinds of interfaces is more confusing
>> than helpful.    (012)

Not sure what we could do.
Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com
Information Integrity, XML Security    (013)