Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

140Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Nov 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Doug, please consider that I believe point 6 to be true (and perhaps the
      most important of the points). Therefore I'm not going to propose something
      here -- because I believe that IDLs make a lot of exclusionary assumptions
      about the kind of language and runtime environment a developer is using. I
      don't happen to use an environment that can make good use of them, or
      generate them automatically, and I'm far from alone in that -- most Web
      application environments are dynamic -- you don't know the types of the
      parameters and can't without adding a lot of overhead for app developers.
      Java and .Net are different, they're static environments, more power to you
      if you like programming that way -- but I like to let the environment do a
      lot of work for me in handing a type coercion. I'm not going back to static
      environments. Dave

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
      To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:07 AM
      Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL

      > (Speaking just for myself - ignore the mail address 8-)
      > Dave wrote:
      > >It can only work in static environments such as Java and .Net and not in
      > >dynamic environments that are popular with Web developers, including but
      > not
      > >limited to Perl, Python, PHP, and UserLand Frontier.
      > If WSDL does not work in a particular use-case then propose something
      > that will - if its good enough people (including IBM and MS) I'm sure will
      > be interesting in playing too.
      > >Today WSDL is not a basis for interop. If there is interop it's only
      > >between Java and .Net.
      > I don't believe the guys on SOAPBuilders would agree with this - I'm
      > pretty sure there are other SOAP processors joining in.
      > >There can be no significant support for this by independent developers
      > >because it shuts them out.
      > Whether or not it shuts people out is no indication of whether the
      > technology/ideas behind WSDL are good or not.
      > I'm no huge fan of WSDL - but it seems to fit a need - and I'm sure when
      > (not "if" but "when") something else comes along if it is better than WSDL
      > people will try to support it.
      > >These companies want the endorsement of the W3C. They're trying to
      > redefine
      > >the rules so that only their products can satisfy them. This is a good
      > test of
      > >the W3C's independence from the big companies.
      > >Philosophically this faceoff is directly comparable to the
      > >and managed hypertext environments that were theorized before the
      > >loosely-coupled HTML-HTTP web came along, and wiped out all the theories.
      > SOAP
      > >alone, without the tight coupling promised by WSDL, is being widely
      > deployed,
      > >without Microsoft and IBM. This must irk them. But don't thwart the
      > of
      > >the Web, it's still alive, in this venue.
      > >Tell Microsoft and IBM to go back to the drawing board. It's the right
      > >thing to do, maybe next time around they won't create such a self-serving
      > >specification that goes against the interests of independent developers.
      > So what's your proposal? Or, if you've offered one why is it not
      > taking off?
      > -Dug
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soap-newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic