W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods?

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:44:24 +0200
Message-ID: <3CEE5FD8.18595352@crf.canon.fr>
To: Russell Butek <butek@us.ibm.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3c.org
I think you are pointing out a fair use case, but one that may not be easily
achieved. Like Jeff, I think we should strive for simplicity and loose coupling
between the endpoints (which I think our charter mandates). I think it is
desirable to be able to map operations to/from programming languages, but I
don't think we should go as far as saying the signature for an operation is the
exact same signature as the one for the corresponding method. I think we will
gain a lot by having a much looser coupling.

Jean-Jacques.

Russell Butek wrote:

> There are a lot of legacy distributed RPC systems out there.  If you want
> them to step up to Web Services, you will have to support a mapping from
> those systems to Web Services, so you will need an RPC mapping.  Don't make
> that mapping more difficult than it has to be, or you will lose a large
> potential base of support for Web Services.
>
> Object interfaces have failed on the web?  Tell that to the J2EE folks who
> are spending (and making) gobs of money at it.
>
> Russell Butek
> butek@us.ibm.com
>
> "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>@w3.org on 05/23/2002 03:28:50
> AM
>
> Sent by:    www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
> To:    Russell Butek/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:    www-ws-desc@w3c.org
> Subject:    Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods?
>
> I think a number of people are starting to point out that this is not how
> you
> should be doing Web services, including members of the XMLP WG and the TAG.
> The
> newer emphasis seems to be more on the document model rather than on RPCs.
>
> An indication of this is that the SOAP RPC model is now optional. A further
> evidence is that the XMLP WG decided just last night (sorry, day time PST)
> to
> revise its HTTP binding to more gracefully integrate with the Web
> Architecture
> (also sometimes known as the REST principle).
>
> You may also be interest in Roy Fielding's analysis of why he thinks
> object-interfaces failed on the Web [1].
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0153.html
>
> Russell Butek wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry I haven't been keeping closer tabs on this issue, but I would
> > like to discourage this thread.  Many languages support overloaded
> > operations.  If you disallow it in WSDL, all you're doing is moving the
> > burden of dealing with overloaded operations from the WSDL spec to
> mapping
> > specs.  And all this accomplishes in the long run is cryptic mappings,
> more
> > chances for name clashes, and more difficulty resolving names in the
> > runtime.  How, for instance, would the following Java be mapped to WSDL?
> >
> > MyObject create(String context, String name);
> > MyObject create(URL name);
> > MyObject create(OtherObject obj);
> > URL createURL();
> > OtherObject createOtherObject();
> >
> > Most likely, mappings will have to come up with mangled names like:
> >
> > <operation name="createStringString".../>
> > <operation name="createURL".../>
> > <operation name="createURL".../> <!-- which of these should be mangled
> > further? -->
> > <operation name="createOtherObject".../>
> > <operation name="createOtherObject".../> <!-- which of these should be
> > mangled further? -->
> >
> > Yes, a language mapping could probably solve these issues better than I
> did
> > in this quick note, but if WSDL itself allowed overloaded operations,
> then
> > the language mapping wouldn't even have to deal with the issues, we'd
> > generate cleaner WSDL and we wouldn't have to worry about name clashes
> and
> > resolution difficulties in the tools and runtime.
> >
> > I don't know the issues at hand, and perhaps they're significant, but I
> > would like everyone to weigh those issues against future issues that
> > banning overloaded operations would raise.
> >
> > Russell Butek
> > butek@us.ibm.com
> >
> > "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>@w3.org on 05/22/2002 04:19:12
> > AM
> >
> > Sent by:    www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >
> > To:    Joyce Yang <joyce.yang@oracle.com>
> > cc:    www-ws-desc@w3c.org
> > Subject:    Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Joyce Yang wrote:
> >
> > > Proposal: clearly disallow methods overloading in WSDL 1.2.
> > > Methods overloading should exist in the concrete implementation
> > > of the service, but not in the service description.
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 11:45:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT