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

145Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Nov 5, 2001
      Good question!

      1. Docs.

      2. Sample code.

      3. A mail list.

      Now a philosophical question. Why do people ask this question so often. Is
      it a mystery? Isn't this how it's always worked?

      Dave


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
      To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:27 AM
      Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL


      > Well, let's continue this then with the assumptions you've
      > mentioned: everything is dynamic and it costs a lot to
      > produce something static (like WSDL).
      > If I'm a client and I want to talk to your getQuote service
      > (ignore for a moment how I know you're even offering it),
      > how do I know what to send? You're not going to provide me
      > with something like WSDL (too static), so how do I know what
      > parameters your getQuote takes? Or what headers you're
      > expecting?
      > -Dug
      >
      >
      > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 12:47:13 PM
      >
      > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
      > cc:
      > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
      >
      >
      >
      > 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
      > tightly-coupled
      > >
      > > >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
      > spirit
      > > 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/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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