Re WSDL: Curiouser and curiouser, Dave writes: Sam Ruby believes[1] that WSDL is one of the cables of the bootstrap of Web Services. I don't. How will this get resolved? We'll try both ways. If he wants to support services that don't have WSDLs, he'll have to bend. If I want to connect my software to services that require WSDLs, I'll have to.

And Sam Ruby replies : And any service which is described with a WSDL can certainly be invoked without referencing the WSDL. No lock-in here! Which is certainly my understanding of WSDL.

There's a couple of issues here. The first is interop. As long as some SOAP interfaces and toolkits are missing WSDL, the others will have to cope with these situations. Which is roughly where we are today. The second as usual is MS. If MS client toolkits expect WSDL because MS Server toolkits always produce it, then they may drag the rest of the industry with them. And it's not just MS. IBM, BEA and The Mind Electric GLUE are also important players. But that's all currently speculation.

All this analysis avoids the real question. Is WSDL useful? Sam and Dave seem to disagree and I'm not sure. A formal documentation standard for SOAP interfaces seems like a good thing. But if it adds complication which actually slows up web service adoption, then maybe not.

[1]That's not a permalink I'm afraid as they seem to be broken. Check Friday, Jan 18.

---

[ << City older than Mohenjodaro unearthed - The Times of India ] [ SatireWire | Surprise Settlement Splits Microsoft >> ]
[ 18-Jan-02 6:33pm ] [ G ] [ # ]