160Re: New Message: Comments on WSDL
- Nov 5, 2001--- In soap-newbies@y..., "Simon Fell" <soap@z...> wrote:
>Someone else pointed out that static languages benefit from WSDL more
> I can follow your points except this one, how is an english document
> that describes how to call getQuote any less coupled than a chunk of
> XML that describes how to call getQuote?
than dynamic languages. I guess. But programs in languages like Java
could just type cast an Object to whatever type is expected.
The thing I like best about WSDL is that tools are able to hide it
Whether we have WSDL or not, the thing I really want a service to
include is a set of tests I can read and copy from. If the tests work,
and there is a test that is similar to the code I want to write, my
job is much easier. This is better than, but not a full replacement of
more traditional documentation.
BTW it is trivial to write a distributed system in a dynamic language
like Smalltalk or Java (note one is dynamic and the other is
static). Both language support enough reflection to automate the
task. It is easier in Smalltalk, but not by as much as I would have
thought before trying it in Java.
A "more static" IDL like WSDL is not so much of a burden, and to the
degree it aids popular static languages like Java, I am not really
against it. If it makes life easier for the hordes of static language
programmers, then I will benefit from using all the services they
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>