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

160Re: New Message: Comments on WSDL

Expand Messages
  • patrick.d.logan@intel.com
    Nov 5, 2001
      --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Simon Fell" <soap@z...> wrote:

      > 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?

      Someone else pointed out that static languages benefit from WSDL more
      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
      from me.

      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

      -Patrick Logan
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic