[XML-SIG] WSDL library ?
> Rich Salz wrote:
>> >
>> > > I will be extremely disappointed if WSDL 1.1 is made SOAP only.
>> >
>> > Don't worry, I expect to lose that battle.
>> >
>> > > WSDL's biggest problem, IMO, is that people feel it is not a language
>> > > that should be authored by hand.
>> >
>> > What's preventing it? In my view, it's the cut/paste repetition you
>> > have to keep doing.
>>
>> That's part of it. Plus there 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.
>>
>> 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. (01)
Tis a paradox indeed. Makes no sense for RPC, yet WSDL is the Web Services
answer to IDL. (02)
The other paradox is that in almost every CORBA development scenario I've been
in, the IDL is the part that gets written by hand, and the language-specific
bindings get generated. In WS land, people want to generate WSDL from Java
interfaces. (03)
I've actually heard the idea of hand-editing WSDL called "nutty". (04)
> WSDL 1.2 should be formally split into two languages: e.g. WS Interface
>> Description L and Service Implementation Definition Language. Perhaps
>> the Service Implementation Definition Language could be entirely
>> protocol-binding-specific. (05)
There you go telling WGs to split languages, again, Paul. ;-) (06)
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management (07)