- From: Jim Webber <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:05:05 +0100
- To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "'WS Description List'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sanjiva: > It defines documents which some may choose to interpret as object > serializations. What's the problem with that? I don't have a problem with that, and indeed that is the canonical case. There are some documents defined somewhere, and in my programming environment I have a view onto them in a form that suits me. It might be objects, it might be something else. > "Abused" is a strong word for describing an interpretation that > most implementations have of the XML documents that are described > in WSDL: eventually these become data structures in a programming > language and a Java object is a lot more Java programmer friendly > than a DOM tree. That does not make WSDL an object IDL. I disagree. What we have seen in Web Services is a tendancy to expose objects via WSDL which is abuse, plain and simple. The fact is that most developers just aren't thinking in document centric terms, and continue to equate methods on objects to WSDL operations. And there are examples out there of exactly this abuse going on. I hope that WSA will clarify this, and we can move on. If WSDL grasped the bull by its horns and used the right terminology and embraced the "simple message exchange model" it would be a wonderful help in educating developers in how to build service- rather than object-oriented systems. Jim
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 12:05:11 UTC