Re: [soapbuilders] Re: why does 'document style' even exist? whynotjust fix SOAP-RPC?
- ----- Original Message -----From: Jacek KopeckySent: Friday, February 22, 2002 6:51 PMSubject: Re: [soapbuilders] Re: why does 'document style' even exist? whynotjust fix SOAP-RPC?Rosimildo,
the question now is - is all that necessary?Many people believe it is. In the old days we had RPC,and advances in technologies led us to COM,CORBA, RMI andall of them have inheritance of interfaces. So, to answer yourquestion, I believe it is.
Inheritance of interfaces is one of WSDL WG's requirements now,
IIRC. And this is not such a big problem to add to WSDL, either:
<portType name="blah" extends"tns:Foo"/>Good.
But this is an extension to WSDL, not to a type language, and
we're talking about using IDL in the types section for specifying
structures because XML Schema is unwieldy for SOAP Encoding data.Ok. I did not go all way back to the thread to check "this detail". :-)
I'll certainly argue that references (passing interfaces) are
out of scope of WSDL to specify as it can be specified otherwise
- in a layer above WSDL.Yes. I agree.
IDL ducks the complexity of passing interfaces by just
specifying that interfaces may be passed, but it does not at all
say how. On the other hand WSDL, which specifies the format of
messages, would have to say concretely what it means to pass a
reference to an interface (instance), and this might be even
meaningless in other WS protocols than SOAP.
Best regards,Complexity is a suject matter. What matters is that it should be easy for developersto use, and have the features that they need. Composition of higher level web servicesusing lower level services is a reality, if you are doing anything beyond the "Echo" demos,or the simple examples on X-methods. But, I know you know that. :-)Rosimildo.