> > For best results with respect to interoperability, write your WSDL first. > > yes but this is an awful thing to do. there is only one thing worse, and > that is trying to debug an XSD file you have written yourself. > It's actually not that bad if you've got a decent tool to support you--my current favorite (which is not to say that it's a wonderful tool, but it's not some nice support for authoring a WSDL doc) is Kamiak Omniopera WS.
> Why did we get into this state of affairs? Was IDL *so* bad? > Because we just *had* to define these things in XML themselves. <shrug/> If you want to go back and suggest IDL again, I'm sure the W3C will happily receive your submission.... ;-) One thought which *does* perhaps offer some attraction is an IDL->WSDL tool, though.... Ted Neward Architect, UCDavis Account & Financial Services http://www.javageeks.com http://www.clrgeeks.com -----Original Message----- From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: .NET Interop problem with jagged arrays ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Neward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: RE: .NET Interop problem with jagged arrays > For best results with respect to interoperability, write your WSDL first. yes but this is an awful thing to do. there is only one thing worse, and that is trying to debug an XSD file you have written yourself. Why did we get into this state of affairs? Was IDL *so* bad?
