RE: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods?

I agree completely. It's a false reality to try to build an
interoperable RPC system when the type systems on both sides are
fundamentally different. That doesn't mean we can't let it look RPC-ish,
or even that some level of RPC isn't necessary. However, we should
strive for a loose coupling that any programming language can map to
without too much difficulty. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Russell Butek
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3c.org
Subject: Re: Issue: should WSDL allow overloaded methods?

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 12:52:53 UTC