W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Are RPC/Encoded Web Services vanishing?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:56:05 +0600
Message-ID: <005701c34903$82218430$02c8a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "Agarwal, Naresh" <nagarwal@informatica.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

"Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> writes:
> > Yes.  WS-I discouraged its use, and WSDL 1.2 used that as rationale to
> > drop it.
>
> And it only became a W3C recommendation less than a month ago.
> Fickle fashion! ;)

Its an "adjunct" part of SOAP 1.2.

WSDL 1.2 still supports it; what it has moved away from is the
notion of having a logical schema and an encoded schema. If
you want to write a schema which follows SOAPEnc concepts
that just find and dandy and supported by WSDL 1.2.

(WSDL 1.2 is still a working draft, so nothing at all is committed
until .. well, the cows come home at the rate we're going ;-(.)

> Am I the only one who finds SOAP Encoding to have potential? I guess
mostly
> because it has a data model almost isomorphic to RDF's, so I don't see
> it as necessarily being bound to RPC and lazy 'myobject.toXML()' coding
> style...

Yes, I do realize the value in having a logical schema and
being able to pick different encodings for it. However, it does
bring in some complexity and hence I too supported removing it.

Schema's limitations w.r.t. graphs is a bit annoying. However,
its not unusable. Life will go on.

Sanjiva.
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2003 01:56:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT