Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wednesday 20 February 2002 11:53, you wrote:
> Agree 100%.
> That's what I'm talking about. WSDL needs to support that.
> > ... if those issues can be handled in another system that's
> > orthogonal to WSDL.
> What system? If WSDL is for defining web services and a web service is
> composed of multiple dynamically created and destroyed data objects with
> methods then WSDL needs to describe their interface.
Right - there isn't such a system, no, but I think there needs to be one, and
I think it's not the end of the world to modularise it into 'WSDL' and
something higher level that talks of the interactions between them :-)
> > Not necessarily - this depends on the terms of your contract with the
> > service provider!
> Fine. The standards should not be biased in favour of terms of service
> that make it such that it is difficult to get your information out.
> Fine, so what value is XML-RPC providing? Raw HTTP is doing all of the
> work. You've got another layer in there to no avail.
All it's providing is a middle ground... handling a common usage pattern, if
> And how do I specify it in WSDL? What's the point of a language designed
> to allow static type annotations if I'm switching back and forth between
> the statically typed, predictable world and the world of strings and
> dynamic binding?
Bloody strings and dynamic binding - the bane of my life!
> Paul Prescod
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software