140Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
- Nov 5, 2001Doug, 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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
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
> >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
> >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.
> >alone, without the tight coupling promised by WSDL, is being widely
> >without Microsoft and IBM. This must irk them. But don't thwart the
> >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?
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>