Glad for the support :-)
And, by the way, I'm *not* knocking the Axis team one bit. Their jobs, and
lives, must have been made a lot less fun having to support all this
craziness.
From: Guy Rixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: axis-user@ws.apache.org
To: axis-user@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attachments, curse thy name
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:12:24 +0100 (BST)
> <rant>It's shocking how complex WSDL is for something so notionally
simple.
> For example I looked at the WSDL at Anne's blog for an operation that
takes
> two integers and returns the sum of those integers. Now, notionally I
could
> write this in at most 4 (very short) lines of text and I don't think
there
> could possibly be any ambiguity about what was meant. Yet the sample at
> Anne's blog is well over 100 (long) lines of obtuse WSDL. Was common
sense
> absent on the day that WSDL was born or did it really have to be this
> complex? It's a major barrier to comprehension and therefore to
use.</rant>
Amen, Brother!
I think the big problem with WSDL is that it appeared before W3C XML schema
and before literal (non)-encoding became standard. If all services with
WSDL
were SOAP services and if all SOAP services used document/literal messages
defined by external schemata, then WSDL could be really simple.
However, it's sometimes useful to define alternate bindings. My project is
looking at publishing a standard port-type with two bindings, one
document/literal SOAP and one for HTTP-GET. If WSDL is to express this,
then
the messages are abstract and can't be expressed concretely by XML schema
(i.e. some messages are not XML at all). Hence all the sub-structure.
Guy Rixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Institute of Astronomy Tel: +44-1223-337542
Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0HA Fax: +44-1223-337523
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
