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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
      Good question!

      1. Docs.

      2. Sample code.

      3. A mail list.

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

      Dave


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


      > Well, let's continue this then with the assumptions you've
      > mentioned: everything is dynamic and it costs a lot to
      > produce something static (like WSDL).
      > If I'm a client and I want to talk to your getQuote service
      > (ignore for a moment how I know you're even offering it),
      > how do I know what to send? You're not going to provide me
      > with something like WSDL (too static), so how do I know what
      > parameters your getQuote takes? Or what headers you're
      > expecting?
      > -Dug
      >
      >
      > "Dave Winer" <dave@...> on 11/05/2001 12:47:13 PM
      >
      > Please respond to soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
      > cc:
      > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
      >
      >
      >
      > Doug, please consider that I believe point 6 to be true (and perhaps the
      > most important of the points). Therefore I'm not going to propose
      something
      > here -- because I believe that IDLs make a lot of exclusionary assumptions
      > about the kind of language and runtime environment a developer is using. I
      > don't happen to use an environment that can make good use of them, or
      > generate them automatically, and I'm far from alone in that -- most Web
      > application environments are dynamic -- you don't know the types of the
      > parameters and can't without adding a lot of overhead for app developers.
      > Java and .Net are different, they're static environments, more power to
      you
      > if you like programming that way -- but I like to let the environment do a
      > lot of work for me in handing a type coercion. I'm not going back to
      static
      > environments. Dave
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Doug Davis" <dug@...>
      > To: <soap-newbies@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:07 AM
      > Subject: Re: [soap-newbies] New Message: Comments on WSDL
      >
      >
      > > (Speaking just for myself - ignore the mail address 8-)
      > >
      > > Dave wrote:
      > > >It can only work in static environments such as Java and .Net and not
      in
      > > >dynamic environments that are popular with Web developers, including
      but
      > > not
      > > >limited to Perl, Python, PHP, and UserLand Frontier.
      > >
      > > If WSDL does not work in a particular use-case then propose something
      > > that will - if its good enough people (including IBM and MS) I'm sure
      > will
      > > be interesting in playing too.
      > >
      > > >Today WSDL is not a basis for interop. If there is interop it's only
      > > >between Java and .Net.
      > >
      > > I don't believe the guys on SOAPBuilders would agree with this - I'm
      > > pretty sure there are other SOAP processors joining in.
      > >
      > > >There can be no significant support for this by independent developers
      > > >because it shuts them out.
      > >
      > > Whether or not it shuts people out is no indication of whether the
      > > technology/ideas behind WSDL are good or not.
      > > I'm no huge fan of WSDL - but it seems to fit a need - and I'm sure when
      > > (not "if" but "when") something else comes along if it is better than
      > WSDL
      > > people will try to support it.
      > >
      > > >These companies want the endorsement of the W3C. They're trying to
      > > redefine
      > > >the rules so that only their products can satisfy them. This is a good
      > > test of
      > > >the W3C's independence from the big companies.
      > > >Philosophically this faceoff is directly comparable to the
      > tightly-coupled
      > >
      > > >and managed hypertext environments that were theorized before the
      > > >loosely-coupled HTML-HTTP web came along, and wiped out all the
      > theories.
      > > SOAP
      > > >alone, without the tight coupling promised by WSDL, is being widely
      > > deployed,
      > > >without Microsoft and IBM. This must irk them. But don't thwart the
      > spirit
      > > of
      > > >the Web, it's still alive, in this venue.
      > > >Tell Microsoft and IBM to go back to the drawing board. It's the right
      > > >thing to do, maybe next time around they won't create such a
      > self-serving
      > > >specification that goes against the interests of independent
      developers.
      > >
      > > So what's your proposal? Or, if you've offered one why is it not
      > > taking off?
      > >
      > > -Dug
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > soap-newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soap-newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > soap-newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • 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 2 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
        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 3 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
          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 4 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
            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 5 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
              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 6 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                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 7 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                  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 8 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                    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 9 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                      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 10 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                        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 11 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                          --- In soap-newbies@y..., "Simon Fell" <soap@z...> wrote:
                          >

                          > I can follow your points except this one, how is an english document
                          > that describes how to call getQuote any less coupled than a chunk of
                          > XML that describes how to call getQuote?

                          Someone else pointed out that static languages benefit from WSDL more
                          than dynamic languages. I guess. But programs in languages like Java
                          could just type cast an Object to whatever type is expected.

                          The thing I like best about WSDL is that tools are able to hide it
                          from me.

                          Whether we have WSDL or not, the thing I really want a service to
                          include is a set of tests I can read and copy from. If the tests work,
                          and there is a test that is similar to the code I want to write, my
                          job is much easier. This is better than, but not a full replacement of
                          more traditional documentation.

                          BTW it is trivial to write a distributed system in a dynamic language
                          like Smalltalk or Java (note one is dynamic and the other is
                          static). Both language support enough reflection to automate the
                          task. It is easier in Smalltalk, but not by as much as I would have
                          thought before trying it in Java.

                          A "more static" IDL like WSDL is not so much of a burden, and to the
                          degree it aids popular static languages like Java, I am not really
                          against it. If it makes life easier for the hordes of static language
                          programmers, then I will benefit from using all the services they
                          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 12 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                            --- 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 13 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                              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 14 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                --- 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 15 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                  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 16 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                    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 17 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                      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 18 of 25 , Nov 5, 2001
                                        --- 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 19 of 25 , Nov 6, 2001
                                          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 20 of 25 , Nov 6, 2001
                                            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 21 of 25 , Nov 6, 2001
                                              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.