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

New Message: Comments on WSDL

Expand Messages
  • webmaster@userland.com
    A new message was posted: Address: http://www.soapware.org/discuss/msgReader$21 By: Dave Winer (dave@userland.com) There s a discussion among the leadership
    Message 1 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      A new message was posted:

      Address: http://www.soapware.org/discuss/msgReader$21

      By: Dave Winer (dave@...)

      <i>There's a discussion among the leadership of the W3C on the future of WSDL, which is an acronym for Web Services Description Language. The discussion itself is off the record, but my point of view is not. Here are some comments I posted over the weekend.</i>
      <ol>
      <li>WSDL was designed in secret behind closed doors by IBM and Microsoft, without participation of independent developers.<p>
      <li>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.<p>
      <li>Today WSDL is not a basis for interop. If there is interop it's only between Java and .Net.<p>
      <li>There can be no significant support for this by independent developers because it shuts them out.<p>
      <li>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. <p>
      <li>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. <p>
      <li>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. <p>
      </ol>
      Dave
    • Doug Davis
      (Speaking just for myself - ignore the mail address 8-) ... not ... If WSDL does not work in a particular use-case then propose something that will - if its
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        (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
      • Dave Winer
        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 --
        Message 3 of 25 , 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
          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/
          >
          >
          >
        • Doug Davis
          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
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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/
          • Dave Winer
            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
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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/
              >
              >
            • Doug Davis
              Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don t
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits
                of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it
                easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don't see
                how WSDL solves it yet - I still believe that a human
                will need to be heavily involved in the process, but
                I guess I always hoped that WSDL was just a step in the
                process of coming up with the solution that will not
                require a human. We're not there yet, and probably
                not that close - but people are trying. Docs, samples
                and mailing lists are a fall-back solution to me.

                It is interesting that you see WSDL as too static, but
                Docs and samples are not. Seems like WSDL could change
                just as often (and probably with less headaches) than
                docs/samples.

                -Dug

                ps. Again - my opinions! 8-)


                "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:31:19 PM

                Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com

                To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                cc:
                Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL



                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/
                >
                >


                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/
              • Dave Winer
                I don t know what it means for WSDL to be too static -- since you re saying that s what I think, I guess I d better understand what you mean by that. ;- The
                Message 7 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  I don't know what it means for WSDL to be "too static" -- since you're
                  saying that's what I think, I guess I'd better understand what you mean by
                  that. ;->

                  The problem is this -- in a dynamic environment, I can't automatically
                  generate WSDL because while I may know the number of incoming params, I have
                  no idea what their type is. Only the programmer knows. And the script may be
                  able to handle lots of different types. Dynamic environments such as our
                  Frontier have built-in type coercion. Same thing is true for return values.
                  Without forcing a new constraint on programmers, which I don't want to do,
                  there's no way to know what the type of the return value is.

                  So in order for WSDL to work in a dynamic environment as a server the
                  programmer has to write some docs. I suppose you could write the docs in
                  WSDL, but English works better for me, both as a writer and a reader. In all
                  likelihood I have to write the docs anyway, so why not stop there.

                  Somehow we, as an industry, got on this treadmill. Some people at IBM and
                  Microsoft decided that WSDL is a requirement, and they've got a lot of other
                  people echoing them without a clue what they're talking about. It's the old
                  tight-coupling vs loose-coupling thing again.

                  Dave


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                  To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:41 AM
                  Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL


                  > Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits
                  > of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it
                  > easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don't see
                  > how WSDL solves it yet - I still believe that a human
                  > will need to be heavily involved in the process, but
                  > I guess I always hoped that WSDL was just a step in the
                  > process of coming up with the solution that will not
                  > require a human. We're not there yet, and probably
                  > not that close - but people are trying. Docs, samples
                  > and mailing lists are a fall-back solution to me.
                  >
                  > It is interesting that you see WSDL as too static, but
                  > Docs and samples are not. Seems like WSDL could change
                  > just as often (and probably with less headaches) than
                  > docs/samples.
                  >
                  > -Dug
                  >
                  > ps. Again - my opinions! 8-)
                  >
                  >
                  > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:31:19 PM
                  >
                  > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                  > cc:
                  > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 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/
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > 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/
                  >
                  >
                • Doug Davis
                  Ah, so its the static typing of data that you see as the real problem. So, if WSDL allowed you to specify a param (or return value) without specifying its
                  Message 8 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ah, so its the static typing of data that you see
                    as the real problem. So, if WSDL allowed you to
                    specify a param (or return value) without specifying
                    its type you'd be happier?
                    -Dug


                    "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:49:50 PM

                    Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com

                    To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                    cc:
                    Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL



                    I don't know what it means for WSDL to be "too static" -- since you're
                    saying that's what I think, I guess I'd better understand what you mean by
                    that. ;->

                    The problem is this -- in a dynamic environment, I can't automatically
                    generate WSDL because while I may know the number of incoming params, I
                    have
                    no idea what their type is. Only the programmer knows. And the script may
                    be
                    able to handle lots of different types. Dynamic environments such as our
                    Frontier have built-in type coercion. Same thing is true for return values.
                    Without forcing a new constraint on programmers, which I don't want to do,
                    there's no way to know what the type of the return value is.

                    So in order for WSDL to work in a dynamic environment as a server the
                    programmer has to write some docs. I suppose you could write the docs in
                    WSDL, but English works better for me, both as a writer and a reader. In
                    all
                    likelihood I have to write the docs anyway, so why not stop there.

                    Somehow we, as an industry, got on this treadmill. Some people at IBM and
                    Microsoft decided that WSDL is a requirement, and they've got a lot of
                    other
                    people echoing them without a clue what they're talking about. It's the old
                    tight-coupling vs loose-coupling thing again.

                    Dave


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                    To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:41 AM
                    Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL


                    > Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits
                    > of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it
                    > easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don't see
                    > how WSDL solves it yet - I still believe that a human
                    > will need to be heavily involved in the process, but
                    > I guess I always hoped that WSDL was just a step in the
                    > process of coming up with the solution that will not
                    > require a human. We're not there yet, and probably
                    > not that close - but people are trying. Docs, samples
                    > and mailing lists are a fall-back solution to me.
                    >
                    > It is interesting that you see WSDL as too static, but
                    > Docs and samples are not. Seems like WSDL could change
                    > just as often (and probably with less headaches) than
                    > docs/samples.
                    >
                    > -Dug
                    >
                    > ps. Again - my opinions! 8-)
                    >
                    >
                    > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:31:19 PM
                    >
                    > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                    > cc:
                    > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > 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/
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > 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/
                  • Dave Winer
                    No I wouldn t be happier -- sorry for being so difficult, but I have to keep referring to item #6. 6. Philosophically this faceoff is directly comparable to
                    Message 9 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      No I wouldn't be happier -- sorry for being so difficult, but I have to keep
                      referring to item #6.

                      "6. 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."

                      BTW, I tried doing an IDL [1] that could possibly work with dynamic
                      environments, and it was such a labor with so little love, I believe our
                      time is much better spent writing killer apps and worrying less about
                      synthetic hurdles that just postpone nirvana.

                      Dave

                      [1] http://www.xmlrpc.com/alidl


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                      To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:54 AM
                      Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL


                      > Ah, so its the static typing of data that you see
                      > as the real problem. So, if WSDL allowed you to
                      > specify a param (or return value) without specifying
                      > its type you'd be happier?
                      > -Dug
                      >
                      >
                      > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:49:50 PM
                      >
                      > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                      > cc:
                      > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > I don't know what it means for WSDL to be "too static" -- since you're
                      > saying that's what I think, I guess I'd better understand what you mean by
                      > that. ;->
                      >
                      > The problem is this -- in a dynamic environment, I can't automatically
                      > generate WSDL because while I may know the number of incoming params, I
                      > have
                      > no idea what their type is. Only the programmer knows. And the script may
                      > be
                      > able to handle lots of different types. Dynamic environments such as our
                      > Frontier have built-in type coercion. Same thing is true for return
                      values.
                      > Without forcing a new constraint on programmers, which I don't want to do,
                      > there's no way to know what the type of the return value is.
                      >
                      > So in order for WSDL to work in a dynamic environment as a server the
                      > programmer has to write some docs. I suppose you could write the docs in
                      > WSDL, but English works better for me, both as a writer and a reader. In
                      > all
                      > likelihood I have to write the docs anyway, so why not stop there.
                      >
                      > Somehow we, as an industry, got on this treadmill. Some people at IBM and
                      > Microsoft decided that WSDL is a requirement, and they've got a lot of
                      > other
                      > people echoing them without a clue what they're talking about. It's the
                      old
                      > tight-coupling vs loose-coupling thing again.
                      >
                      > Dave
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                      > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:41 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                      >
                      >
                      > > Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits
                      > > of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it
                      > > easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don't see
                      > > how WSDL solves it yet - I still believe that a human
                      > > will need to be heavily involved in the process, but
                      > > I guess I always hoped that WSDL was just a step in the
                      > > process of coming up with the solution that will not
                      > > require a human. We're not there yet, and probably
                      > > not that close - but people are trying. Docs, samples
                      > > and mailing lists are a fall-back solution to me.
                      > >
                      > > It is interesting that you see WSDL as too static, but
                      > > Docs and samples are not. Seems like WSDL could change
                      > > just as often (and probably with less headaches) than
                      > > docs/samples.
                      > >
                      > > -Dug
                      > >
                      > > ps. Again - my opinions! 8-)
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:31:19 PM
                      > >
                      > > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                      > >
                      > > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > cc:
                      > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > 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/
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > 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/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > 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/
                      >
                      >
                    • Doug Davis
                      Well, I can t speak to that one. But think of it this way - if WSDL is a waste of time at least it ll keep those meddlers out of your hair (for a while
                      Message 10 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well, I can't speak to that one. But think of it this
                        way - if WSDL is a waste of time at least it'll keep
                        those meddlers out of your hair (for a while anyway).
                        8-)
                        -Dug



                        "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 02:04:20 PM

                        Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com

                        To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                        cc:
                        Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL



                        No I wouldn't be happier -- sorry for being so difficult, but I have to
                        keep
                        referring to item #6.

                        "6. 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."

                        BTW, I tried doing an IDL [1] that could possibly work with dynamic
                        environments, and it was such a labor with so little love, I believe our
                        time is much better spent writing killer apps and worrying less about
                        synthetic hurdles that just postpone nirvana.

                        Dave

                        [1] http://www.xmlrpc.com/alidl


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                        To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:54 AM
                        Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL


                        > Ah, so its the static typing of data that you see
                        > as the real problem. So, if WSDL allowed you to
                        > specify a param (or return value) without specifying
                        > its type you'd be happier?
                        > -Dug
                        >
                        >
                        > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:49:50 PM
                        >
                        > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                        > cc:
                        > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > I don't know what it means for WSDL to be "too static" -- since you're
                        > saying that's what I think, I guess I'd better understand what you mean
                        by
                        > that. ;->
                        >
                        > The problem is this -- in a dynamic environment, I can't automatically
                        > generate WSDL because while I may know the number of incoming params, I
                        > have
                        > no idea what their type is. Only the programmer knows. And the script may
                        > be
                        > able to handle lots of different types. Dynamic environments such as our
                        > Frontier have built-in type coercion. Same thing is true for return
                        values.
                        > Without forcing a new constraint on programmers, which I don't want to
                        do,
                        > there's no way to know what the type of the return value is.
                        >
                        > So in order for WSDL to work in a dynamic environment as a server the
                        > programmer has to write some docs. I suppose you could write the docs in
                        > WSDL, but English works better for me, both as a writer and a reader. In
                        > all
                        > likelihood I have to write the docs anyway, so why not stop there.
                        >
                        > Somehow we, as an industry, got on this treadmill. Some people at IBM and
                        > Microsoft decided that WSDL is a requirement, and they've got a lot of
                        > other
                        > people echoing them without a clue what they're talking about. It's the
                        old
                        > tight-coupling vs loose-coupling thing again.
                        >
                        > Dave
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                        > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:41 AM
                        > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                        >
                        >
                        > > Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits
                        > > of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it
                        > > easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don't see
                        > > how WSDL solves it yet - I still believe that a human
                        > > will need to be heavily involved in the process, but
                        > > I guess I always hoped that WSDL was just a step in the
                        > > process of coming up with the solution that will not
                        > > require a human. We're not there yet, and probably
                        > > not that close - but people are trying. Docs, samples
                        > > and mailing lists are a fall-back solution to me.
                        > >
                        > > It is interesting that you see WSDL as too static, but
                        > > Docs and samples are not. Seems like WSDL could change
                        > > just as often (and probably with less headaches) than
                        > > docs/samples.
                        > >
                        > > -Dug
                        > >
                        > > ps. Again - my opinions! 8-)
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:31:19 PM
                        > >
                        > > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                        > >
                        > > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > cc:
                        > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > 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/
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > 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/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > 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/
                      • Dave Winer
                        Yes that s true and nice, but they ve got the analysts and a few developers hoodwinked into thinking it isn t really Web Services if it isn t Web Services
                        Message 11 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes that's true and nice, but they've got the analysts and a few developers
                          hoodwinked into thinking it isn't really Web Services if it isn't Web
                          Services Description Language. Most of the people they have convinced are
                          either very confused or very clueless. I wanted to signal to independent
                          developers that it's time to get going with killer apps and not wait for the
                          BigCo's to get off their butts and figure out what this stuff is good for.
                          Just Say Soap. Dave


                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                          To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:10 AM
                          Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL


                          > Well, I can't speak to that one. But think of it this
                          > way - if WSDL is a waste of time at least it'll keep
                          > those meddlers out of your hair (for a while anyway).
                          > 8-)
                          > -Dug
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 02:04:20 PM
                          >
                          > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                          > cc:
                          > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > No I wouldn't be happier -- sorry for being so difficult, but I have to
                          > keep
                          > referring to item #6.
                          >
                          > "6. 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."
                          >
                          > BTW, I tried doing an IDL [1] that could possibly work with dynamic
                          > environments, and it was such a labor with so little love, I believe our
                          > time is much better spent writing killer apps and worrying less about
                          > synthetic hurdles that just postpone nirvana.
                          >
                          > Dave
                          >
                          > [1] http://www.xmlrpc.com/alidl
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                          > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:54 AM
                          > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                          >
                          >
                          > > Ah, so its the static typing of data that you see
                          > > as the real problem. So, if WSDL allowed you to
                          > > specify a param (or return value) without specifying
                          > > its type you'd be happier?
                          > > -Dug
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:49:50 PM
                          > >
                          > > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                          > >
                          > > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > cc:
                          > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > I don't know what it means for WSDL to be "too static" -- since you're
                          > > saying that's what I think, I guess I'd better understand what you mean
                          > by
                          > > that. ;->
                          > >
                          > > The problem is this -- in a dynamic environment, I can't automatically
                          > > generate WSDL because while I may know the number of incoming params, I
                          > > have
                          > > no idea what their type is. Only the programmer knows. And the script
                          may
                          > > be
                          > > able to handle lots of different types. Dynamic environments such as our
                          > > Frontier have built-in type coercion. Same thing is true for return
                          > values.
                          > > Without forcing a new constraint on programmers, which I don't want to
                          > do,
                          > > there's no way to know what the type of the return value is.
                          > >
                          > > So in order for WSDL to work in a dynamic environment as a server the
                          > > programmer has to write some docs. I suppose you could write the docs in
                          > > WSDL, but English works better for me, both as a writer and a reader. In
                          > > all
                          > > likelihood I have to write the docs anyway, so why not stop there.
                          > >
                          > > Somehow we, as an industry, got on this treadmill. Some people at IBM
                          and
                          > > Microsoft decided that WSDL is a requirement, and they've got a lot of
                          > > other
                          > > people echoing them without a clue what they're talking about. It's the
                          > old
                          > > tight-coupling vs loose-coupling thing again.
                          > >
                          > > Dave
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
                          > > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:41 AM
                          > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > > Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits
                          > > > of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it
                          > > > easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don't see
                          > > > how WSDL solves it yet - I still believe that a human
                          > > > will need to be heavily involved in the process, but
                          > > > I guess I always hoped that WSDL was just a step in the
                          > > > process of coming up with the solution that will not
                          > > > require a human. We're not there yet, and probably
                          > > > not that close - but people are trying. Docs, samples
                          > > > and mailing lists are a fall-back solution to me.
                          > > >
                          > > > It is interesting that you see WSDL as too static, but
                          > > > Docs and samples are not. Seems like WSDL could change
                          > > > just as often (and probably with less headaches) than
                          > > > docs/samples.
                          > > >
                          > > > -Dug
                          > > >
                          > > > ps. Again - my opinions! 8-)
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 01:31:19 PM
                          > > >
                          > > > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >
                          > > > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > > cc:
                          > > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > 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/
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > 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/
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > 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/
                          >
                          >
                        • Julian Bond
                          In article , Dave Winer writes ... Isn t this back to front? It s the programmer producing the
                          Message 12 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In article <0c3c01c1662a$b00d0f30$33a1dc40@murphy>, Dave Winer
                            <dave@...> writes
                            >The problem is this -- in a dynamic environment, I can't automatically
                            >generate WSDL because while I may know the number of incoming params, I have
                            >no idea what their type is. Only the programmer knows.

                            Isn't this back to front? It's the programmer producing the server that
                            needs to generate the WSDL and presumably they know what types the
                            parameters are?

                            And as for the reader of the WSDL, writing the client, they already know
                            how to convert the SOAP types to their local internal types.

                            If this is an argument about strong typing, last time I looked both SOAP
                            and XML-RPC were inherently string typed, and weakly typed environments
                            like PHP already have to jump through hoops to cope with them. Adding an
                            additional translation layer to dynamically connect to a server via WSDL
                            looks hard but not impossible. The issue of typing is no different from
                            what we're already having to cope with.

                            This also ignores the end-point definitions in WSDL. Once you've built
                            the client that connects to a specific server, WSDL could provide a
                            mechanism to redirect to a new instance of the server without any other
                            configuration.

                            In article <9s6r0h+9bd@...>, tblanchard2@... writes
                            >From: "Doug Davis" <dug@u...>
                            >Incidentally - in your first rant - I could replace the phrase WSDL
                            >with SOAP and add Userland to the list of company names and you'd
                            >pretty well capture how I feel about SOAP.

                            LOL! And even more so with XML-RPC, but that's another story ;-)

                            --
                            Julian Bond email: julian_bond@...
                            CV/Resume: http://www.voidstar.com/cv/
                            WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
                            M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                            ICQ:33679568 tag:So many words, so little time
                          • Simon Fell
                            Dave, 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
                            Message 13 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dave,

                              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 ?

                              Tx
                              Simon

                              --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                              > No I wouldn't be happier -- sorry for being so difficult,
                              > but I have to keep referring to item #6.
                              >
                              > "6. 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."
                              >
                              > BTW, I tried doing an IDL [1] that could possibly work with dynamic
                              > environments, and it was such a labor with so little love,
                              > I believe our time is much better spent writing killer apps
                              > and worrying less about synthetic hurdles that just postpone
                              > nirvana.
                              >
                              > Dave
                              >
                              > [1] http://www.xmlrpc.com/alidl
                            • will_conant@hotmail.com
                              My first response to WSDL was, What s the point of this, I ll still need documentation. Then, I had to write some SOAP stuff with Java. I ended up using GLUE
                              Message 14 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                My first response to WSDL was, "What's the point of this, I'll still
                                need documentation." Then, I had to write some SOAP stuff with Java.
                                I ended up using GLUE from The Mind Electric (a great product, btw).
                                Now I understand WSDL. It comes down to this (before you read any
                                further, this is my opinion and not nessisarily the opinion of the
                                creators of WSDL or whatever):

                                Java and C# are statically typed and, therefore, lame. Consequently,
                                if people want to interact with other SOAP services from Java or C#,
                                they're going to be coercing and casting types all over the place and
                                their '9' and '0' keys are going to wear out.

                                WSDL fixes this by allowing programmers in statically typed languages
                                to magically generate types for use with SOAP services.

                                My question is this: why is this a bad thing? Just because a service
                                publishes a WSDL file, doesn't meen that you can't connect to it with
                                a more dynamic language. How does WSDL affect interop?

                                (I have a few ideas as to why WSDL is philisophically a bad thing,
                                but what I'm interested in here is if it is technically a bad thing.)

                                --- In soap-newbies@y..., webmaster@u... wrote:
                                > A new message was posted:
                                >
                                > Address: http://www.soapware.org/discuss/msgReader$21
                                >
                                > By: Dave Winer (dave@u...)
                                >
                                > <i>There's a discussion among the leadership of the W3C on the
                                future of WSDL, which is an acronym for Web Services Description
                                Language. The discussion itself is off the record, but my point of
                                view is not. Here are some comments I posted over the weekend.</i>
                                > <ol>
                                > <li>WSDL was designed in secret behind closed doors by IBM and
                                Microsoft, without participation of independent developers.<p>
                                > <li>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.<p>
                                > <li>Today WSDL is not a basis for interop. If there is interop it's
                                only between Java and .Net.<p>
                                > <li>There can be no significant support for this by independent
                                developers because it shuts them out.<p>
                                > <li>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.
                                <p>
                                > <li>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. <p>
                                > <li>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. <p>
                                > </ol>
                                > Dave
                              • patrick.d.logan@intel.com
                                ... 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
                                Message 15 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- 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
                                  provide!

                                  -Patrick Logan
                                • rubys@us.ibm.com
                                  ... Shh... don t tell the independent developers working on SOAP::Lite or PHPXMLP or any of the folks at ActiveState. ;-)
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In soap-newbies@y..., webmaster@u... wrote:
                                    > A new message was posted:
                                    >
                                    > Address: http://www.soapware.org/discuss/msgReader$21
                                    >
                                    > By: Dave Winer (dave@u...)
                                    >
                                    > <li>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.<p>
                                    > <li>There can be no significant support for this by independent
                                    > developers because it shuts them out.<p>

                                    Shh... don't tell the independent developers working on SOAP::Lite
                                    or PHPXMLP or any of the folks at ActiveState.

                                    ;-)
                                  • Dave Winer
                                    Hi Sam -- it d be great to see a Howto for Perl and PHP programmers. It s easy to say you re doing something ugly and fragile. I ve seen it done many times.
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Sam -- it'd be great to see a Howto for Perl and PHP programmers.

                                      It's easy to say you're doing something ugly and fragile. I've seen it done
                                      many times.

                                      Have a nice day.

                                      Dave


                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: <rubys@...>
                                      To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 6:48 PM
                                      Subject: [soap-newbies] Re: New Message: Comments on WSDL


                                      > --- In soap-newbies@y..., webmaster@u... wrote:
                                      > > A new message was posted:
                                      > >
                                      > > Address: http://www.soapware.org/discuss/msgReader$21
                                      > >
                                      > > By: Dave Winer (dave@u...)
                                      > >
                                      > > <li>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.<p>
                                      > > <li>There can be no significant support for this by independent
                                      > > developers because it shuts them out.<p>
                                      >
                                      > Shh... don't tell the independent developers working on SOAP::Lite
                                      > or PHPXMLP or any of the folks at ActiveState.
                                      >
                                      > ;-)
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > 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/
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • rubys@us.ibm.com
                                      ... From http://www.soaplite.com/: use SOAP::Lite; print SOAP::Lite - service( http://www.xmethods.net/sd/StockQuoteService.wsdl ) - getQuote( MSFT ); ...
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                                        > Hi Sam -- it'd be great to see a Howto for Perl and PHP
                                        > programmers.

                                        From http://www.soaplite.com/:

                                        use SOAP::Lite;

                                        print SOAP::Lite
                                        -> service('http://www.xmethods.net/sd/StockQuoteService.wsdl')
                                        -> getQuote('MSFT');

                                        > It's easy to say you're doing something ugly and fragile.
                                        > I've seen it done many times.

                                        Huh?

                                        > Have a nice day.

                                        Back atcha. ;-)

                                        > Dave

                                        - Sam
                                      • Dave Winer
                                        1. Did you read the other messages in this thread? 2. Is http://www.xmethods.net/sd/StockQuoteService.wsdl describing a Perl app? 2. If so, how did the WSDL
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          1. Did you read the other messages in this thread?

                                          2. Is http://www.xmethods.net/sd/StockQuoteService.wsdl describing a Perl
                                          app?

                                          2. If so, how did the WSDL file get created?

                                          Dave


                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: <rubys@...>
                                          To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 7:03 PM
                                          Subject: [soap-newbies] Re: New Message: Comments on WSDL


                                          > --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                                          > > Hi Sam -- it'd be great to see a Howto for Perl and PHP
                                          > > programmers.
                                          >
                                          > From http://www.soaplite.com/:
                                          >
                                          > use SOAP::Lite;
                                          >
                                          > print SOAP::Lite
                                          > -> service('http://www.xmethods.net/sd/StockQuoteService.wsdl')
                                          > -> getQuote('MSFT');
                                          >
                                          > > It's easy to say you're doing something ugly and fragile.
                                          > > I've seen it done many times.
                                          >
                                          > Huh?
                                          >
                                          > > Have a nice day.
                                          >
                                          > Back atcha. ;-)
                                          >
                                          > > Dave
                                          >
                                          > - Sam
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > 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/
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • rubys@us.ibm.com
                                          Short answers first, then a more complete discussion. ... Yes. ... I don t know. But you will find a similar Perl app on
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Short answers first, then a more complete discussion.

                                            --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                                            > 1. Did you read the other messages in this thread?

                                            Yes.

                                            > 2. Is http://www.xmethods.net/sd/StockQuoteService.wsdl describing
                                            > a Perl app?

                                            I don't know. But you will find a similar Perl app on

                                            http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Reference/Products/PerlEx/WebService
                                            s.html

                                            > 2. If so, how did the WSDL file get created?

                                            http://localhost/PerlEx/soap.plex?wsdl.

                                            > Dave

                                            Now for the more complete answers.

                                            (1) I was responding primarily to your original self described
                                            rant. It states no significant support for WSDL is possible. I
                                            view consuming WSDL as significant. If for no other reason, it
                                            saves you from typing the parameter names in languages which do
                                            positional parameter notation.

                                            (2) It is fair to point out that additional information is
                                            required over and above what dynamic languages require in order
                                            to interoperate successfully with less capable languages (it is no
                                            secret that I'm a big fan of scripting languages). One could take
                                            the position that that's the problem for the users of such
                                            languages to each deal with separately.

                                            (3) All other things being equal, those environments which make it
                                            easy for a larger set of clients to interoperate out of the box
                                            will be advantaged over those that don't.

                                            - Sam
                                          • Dave Winer
                                            Forgive me for simplifying the argument -- at least I made one -- the WSDL advocates just snow everyone and it seems no one questions the wisdom of this
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Forgive me for simplifying the argument -- at least I made one -- the WSDL
                                              advocates just snow everyone and it seems no one questions the wisdom of
                                              this direction. You say you like scripting languages, so stand up for them.
                                              Good night Sam. Dave


                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: <rubys@...>
                                              To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 7:54 PM
                                              Subject: [soap-newbies] Re: New Message: Comments on WSDL


                                              > Short answers first, then a more complete discussion.
                                              >
                                              > --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                                              > > 1. Did you read the other messages in this thread?
                                              >
                                              > Yes.
                                              >
                                              > > 2. Is http://www.xmethods.net/sd/StockQuoteService.wsdl describing
                                              > > a Perl app?
                                              >
                                              > I don't know. But you will find a similar Perl app on
                                              >
                                              > http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Reference/Products/PerlEx/WebService
                                              > s.html
                                              >
                                              > > 2. If so, how did the WSDL file get created?
                                              >
                                              > http://localhost/PerlEx/soap.plex?wsdl.
                                              >
                                              > > Dave
                                              >
                                              > Now for the more complete answers.
                                              >
                                              > (1) I was responding primarily to your original self described
                                              > rant. It states no significant support for WSDL is possible. I
                                              > view consuming WSDL as significant. If for no other reason, it
                                              > saves you from typing the parameter names in languages which do
                                              > positional parameter notation.
                                              >
                                              > (2) It is fair to point out that additional information is
                                              > required over and above what dynamic languages require in order
                                              > to interoperate successfully with less capable languages (it is no
                                              > secret that I'm a big fan of scripting languages). One could take
                                              > the position that that's the problem for the users of such
                                              > languages to each deal with separately.
                                              >
                                              > (3) All other things being equal, those environments which make it
                                              > easy for a larger set of clients to interoperate out of the box
                                              > will be advantaged over those that don't.
                                              >
                                              > - Sam
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > 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/
                                              >
                                              >
                                            • rubys@us.ibm.com
                                              ... I do more than say I like scripting languages: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/aw.nsf/techbios/912318FCF05B7F1B8825676 700837E76
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Forgive me for simplifying the argument -- at least I made one --
                                                > the WSDL advocates just snow everyone and it seems no one
                                                > questions the wisdom of this direction. You say you like
                                                > scripting languages, so stand up for them.

                                                I do more than say I like scripting languages:

                                                http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/aw.nsf/techbios/912318FCF05B7F1B8825676
                                                700837E76
                                                http://www.php.net/credits.php
                                                http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/E262-3.pdf

                                                Shortly, you should also see an announcement from ActiveState.

                                                I am also a WSDL advocate.

                                                > Good night Sam. Dave

                                                I'm not done coding yet. ;-)

                                                - Sam
                                              • david@drumkit.net
                                                Isn t it ironic that Microsoft would produce WSDL with tight coupling as Dave describes after they did the variant data type in COM? Aren t tight coupling
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Nov 6, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Isn't it ironic that Microsoft would produce WSDL with "tight
                                                  coupling" as Dave describes after they did the variant data type in
                                                  COM? Aren't tight coupling and strict typing the same here? I
                                                  thought we learned the lessons about void * and variant years ago?
                                                  When we have a choice, wouldn't we be better off to choose the high
                                                  road?

                                                  Isn't WSDL largely functioning the way query interface did in COM?
                                                  By providing a way for programs to interrogate an interface at
                                                  runtime, without human intervention?

                                                  Isn't the idea with WSDL also to move the top layer client interface
                                                  to a higher level? You can see this with the vbscript sample that I
                                                  have here:

                                                  http://www.watsondesign.org/gallery/windowsxp/aac

                                                  The WSDL precludes _me_ from having to pack the XML myself and fire
                                                  it down the wire or deal with any bizarre syntactical machinations.
                                                  I thought moving these things up to that level would boost their
                                                  adoption - particularly by the millions of VB programmers out there?
                                                  I'm not one of them but I hacked this temperature sample together in
                                                  about 10 minutes based on a nice article at MSDN and xmethods
                                                  interface description.

                                                  By the way, isn't VBScript a dynamic environment by Dave's
                                                  definition? AFAIK, this is possible from any language that talks
                                                  windows scripting host and COM. The example I present here is all
                                                  completely built-in to windows xp, in a silimar fashion to the way
                                                  any OSX user could do the same type of functionality out of the box.

                                                  The commentary about doc is an interesting one. I don't believe that
                                                  WSDL is good doc for the average coder either but product's like
                                                  Glue from the Mind Electric provide a solution that precludes the
                                                  server coder from needing to write mass quantities of his own doc
                                                  (see the 4th screenshot down on this page, long URL - I'm sure it
                                                  will wrap):

                                                  http://www.themindelectric.com/products/glue/releases/GLUE-
                                                  1.2/docs/glue/guide/console.html

                                                  Finally, does PHP fit Dave's definition of a dynamic environment?

                                                  This sure seems to handle WSDL rather nicely:

                                                  http://dietrich.ganx4.com/soapx4/

                                                  In the end, I've enjoyed working with XML-RPC and SOAP _and_ WSDL. I
                                                  like WSDL for the ease with which my clients can interface with my
                                                  server implementation. AFAIC, the higher the client layer gets, the
                                                  better.

                                                  -dave

                                                  --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
                                                  > No I wouldn't be happier -- sorry for being so difficult, but I
                                                  have to keep
                                                  > referring to item #6.
                                                  >
                                                  > "6. 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."
                                                  >
                                                  > BTW, I tried doing an IDL [1] that could possibly work with dynamic
                                                  > environments, and it was such a labor with so little love, I
                                                  believe our
                                                  > time is much better spent writing killer apps and worrying less
                                                  about
                                                  > synthetic hurdles that just postpone nirvana.
                                                  >
                                                  > Dave
                                                  >
                                                  > [1] http://www.xmlrpc.com/alidl
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@u...>
                                                  > To: <soap-newbies@y...>
                                                  > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:54 AM
                                                  > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > > Ah, so its the static typing of data that you see
                                                  > > as the real problem. So, if WSDL allowed you to
                                                  > > specify a param (or return value) without specifying
                                                  > > its type you'd be happier?
                                                  > > -Dug
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> on 11/05/2001 01:49:50 PM
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Please respond to soap-newbies@y...
                                                  > >
                                                  > > To: <soap-newbies@y...>
                                                  > > cc:
                                                  > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I don't know what it means for WSDL to be "too static" -- since
                                                  you're
                                                  > > saying that's what I think, I guess I'd better understand what
                                                  you mean by
                                                  > > that. ;->
                                                  > >
                                                  > > The problem is this -- in a dynamic environment, I can't
                                                  automatically
                                                  > > generate WSDL because while I may know the number of incoming
                                                  params, I
                                                  > > have
                                                  > > no idea what their type is. Only the programmer knows. And the
                                                  script may
                                                  > > be
                                                  > > able to handle lots of different types. Dynamic environments
                                                  such as our
                                                  > > Frontier have built-in type coercion. Same thing is true for
                                                  return
                                                  > values.
                                                  > > Without forcing a new constraint on programmers, which I don't
                                                  want to do,
                                                  > > there's no way to know what the type of the return value is.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > So in order for WSDL to work in a dynamic environment as a
                                                  server the
                                                  > > programmer has to write some docs. I suppose you could write the
                                                  docs in
                                                  > > WSDL, but English works better for me, both as a writer and a
                                                  reader. In
                                                  > > all
                                                  > > likelihood I have to write the docs anyway, so why not stop
                                                  there.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Somehow we, as an industry, got on this treadmill. Some people
                                                  at IBM and
                                                  > > Microsoft decided that WSDL is a requirement, and they've got a
                                                  lot of
                                                  > > other
                                                  > > people echoing them without a clue what they're talking about.
                                                  It's the
                                                  > old
                                                  > > tight-coupling vs loose-coupling thing again.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Dave
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@u...>
                                                  > > To: <soap-newbies@y...>
                                                  > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:41 AM
                                                  > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > > Well, sure that stuff can work but one of the benefits
                                                  > > > of WSDL (or supposed benefits 8-) is that it makes it
                                                  > > > easier to do this stuff programmatically. I don't see
                                                  > > > how WSDL solves it yet - I still believe that a human
                                                  > > > will need to be heavily involved in the process, but
                                                  > > > I guess I always hoped that WSDL was just a step in the
                                                  > > > process of coming up with the solution that will not
                                                  > > > require a human. We're not there yet, and probably
                                                  > > > not that close - but people are trying. Docs, samples
                                                  > > > and mailing lists are a fall-back solution to me.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > It is interesting that you see WSDL as too static, but
                                                  > > > Docs and samples are not. Seems like WSDL could change
                                                  > > > just as often (and probably with less headaches) than
                                                  > > > docs/samples.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > -Dug
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > ps. Again - my opinions! 8-)
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> on 11/05/2001 01:31:19 PM
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Please respond to soap-newbies@y...
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > To: <soap-newbies@y...>
                                                  > > > cc:
                                                  > > > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > 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@u...>
                                                  > > > To: <soap-newbies@y...>
                                                  > > > 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@u...> on 11/05/2001 12:47:13 PM
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > Please respond to soap-newbies@y...
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > To: <soap-newbies@y...>
                                                  > > > > 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@u...>
                                                  > > > > To: <soap-newbies@y...>
                                                  > > > > 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@y...
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > 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@y...
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > 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@y...
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > 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@y...
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > 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@y...
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > 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@y...
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > 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@y...
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                • delza@alliances.org
                                                  OK, first off there s no technical reason why dynamic languages can t use WSDL (write and/or consume). I ve seen pointers to solutions for PHP and Perl,
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Nov 6, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    OK, first off there's no technical reason why dynamic languages can't
                                                    use WSDL (write and/or consume). I've seen pointers to solutions for
                                                    PHP and Perl, here's one for Python:

                                                    http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/webservices-onlinecourse-bytitle/D092605075D1D67D86256A7E0042432D?OpenDocument

                                                    Note, most (maybe all?) of these languages already have mappings for
                                                    OMG IDL (CORBA). I know the Python mappings are pretty ugly, but they
                                                    do exist and can be used with CORBA and other ORBs, which are
                                                    significantly more hairy than WSDL.

                                                    WSDL and UDDI are basically attempts to strap on the infrastructure
                                                    that comes with CORBA. They're significantly easier to use than CORBA
                                                    (from dynamic OR static languages), but there's nothing really new or
                                                    earth-shattering about them (besides the Web Services(tm) meme...).
                                                    People have been doing RPC in various flavors for a long time now, and
                                                    XML can help with different aspects of that, which is cool.

                                                    Now, whether you *need* WSDL or UDDI is a matter of what you're doing
                                                    and what kind of tools you like to use. Like everything else in
                                                    computing the correct answer is "it depends." They are tools in the
                                                    toolbox and won't fit every problem. I'm not a big fan, but I know
                                                    they're there if I have a problem which fits.

                                                    A final point. Maybe Microsoft and IBM did create this in a smoke
                                                    filled room. That's how a lot of XML specs are getting written these
                                                    days. SAX was written by XML developers privy to the XML-DEV list
                                                    without consulting any standards bodies. These things all have their
                                                    place--if they're useful people will use them. Just don't believe the
                                                    hype (which applies to pretty much everything).

                                                    --Dethe
                                                  • Alan Kent
                                                    Some completely personal opinions on some of the points mentioned. I am not trying to be argumentative, but I am afraid I disagree with many of the points you
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Nov 6, 2001
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Some completely personal opinions on some of the points mentioned.
                                                      I am not trying to be argumentative, but I am afraid I disagree
                                                      with many of the points you have made.

                                                      > 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.

                                                      This one will always be a difficult area. There will always be
                                                      data impedence when trying to get dynamically typed languages
                                                      and non-dynamically typed languages working together. If you
                                                      make it all dynamic, then supporting staticlly typed languages
                                                      will be harder. Which is more important? Well, there is clearly
                                                      no single correct answer to that one!

                                                      I think you are trying to propose that instead of agreeing to the
                                                      type of data items being sent. Personally I think this is a very
                                                      bad model. It has the potential to greatly decrease interoperability.
                                                      It requires both the client and server to implement exactly the
                                                      same automatic type coercion rules or else undefined results may
                                                      occur. Eg: think about how many date formats there are. If its
                                                      sent as 1/2/01 from a US client to an Australian server, then
                                                      the US end may say its M/D/Y where as the Australia server will
                                                      say its D/M/Y. I think for interoperability its important that
                                                      at the protocol level, values are sent through with correct types.
                                                      Relying on the protocol to 'get it right' is dangerous when dealing
                                                      with multiple language implementations.

                                                      Note that the MS Soap toolkit dynamically loads a WSDL file from a
                                                      site then allows dynamically typed VBScript to talk to the site.
                                                      I have been using it without problem talking to a SOAP server I have
                                                      been developing. So I think your claim that "it can only work in static
                                                      environments" is incorrect. It may be that it works better in static
                                                      environments, but it is already working today in dynamic environments.

                                                      > Today WSDL is not a basis for interop. If there is interop it's only
                                                      > between Java and .Net.

                                                      Again, *I* belive this statement to be incorrect. There are many other
                                                      SOAP implementor tool kits using WSDL files. There is even a group
                                                      talking about doing some WSDL interoperability testing.

                                                      > There can be no significant support for this by independent developers
                                                      > because it shuts them out.

                                                      Again, I am not sure exactly who you are talking about, but there
                                                      are many SOAP implementors on the interop list who are using WSDL.
                                                      Its certainly not only IBM and Java. My toolkit for example
                                                      relies on WSDL files. I tried to do a purely dynamic approach,
                                                      but it failed (it was early on mind you) because not all SOAP
                                                      implementations sent adequate type information in the packets
                                                      (it was optional).

                                                      > 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.

                                                      Again, I would have to disagree I am afraid. We develop large scale
                                                      web sites for organisations. We are not a big company - we are actually
                                                      a consulting group that is a part of a University.

                                                      We find the biggest problem that most sites have had is the loosely
                                                      coupled nature of HTML. The world is much better than it was here these
                                                      days, but we always strongly recommend against using HTML as your
                                                      native format for data where you have any reasonable sized site. We
                                                      always recommend using some format that can be rigerously cross checked
                                                      and managed. The loose nature of HTML is very bad for managing data.
                                                      Its great for user interfaces, but bad for data management. We always
                                                      recommend using some other rigourous, long-life mechanism for relating
                                                      information (IDs etc) and dynamically form the URLs from that.

                                                      So I am not sure what you mean by "wiped out all the theories". I agree
                                                      that the initial mad rush for the web ignored all the theoretical
                                                      background. However, I think most people developing large sites
                                                      acknowledge that using loosely coupled URLs directly is not the way
                                                      to go. It creates serious and real maintenance problems. So I would
                                                      use the analogy in the exact oposite way. To avoid all the problems
                                                      pepole have had with loosly coupled systmes such as HTML, put structure in from the beginning!

                                                      > 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.

                                                      Out of curiosity, who is 'widely deploying SOAP'? Its hard to keep
                                                      abreast of all the activities going on around the place. I am genuinely
                                                      interested in who is 'widely deploying' it, and what toolkits are
                                                      being used.

                                                      Personally, I find WSDL files horrible. I find them confusing,
                                                      difficult to understand, etc. However, the thing I like *is* the
                                                      static nature. Its a contract between the client and the server
                                                      about how to agree to communicate. You do not have to use a WSDL
                                                      file - but the static nature of data types is extremely valuable
                                                      as it stops all sorts of messy automatic data coercion problems
                                                      (eg: you sent me a float but I expected an integer, should I
                                                      round up or down or report an error?)

                                                      Alan
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.