Sam defends WSDL (but doesn’t try too hard :)

1 minute read

Sam defends WSDL (but doesn't try too hard :)

In defense of WSDL. Clemens Vasters: Why I want WSDL to die. I agree in principle with the sentiments expressed in this excellent rant. It is the execution and details that things become problematic. What actually concerns me more that the (valid, IMHO) irritations that Clemens so eloquently describes is the process of getting consensus and widespread adoption of any new format.

There also is one important aspect that Clemens seems to have overlooked, which I will generically refer to as bindings. When doing SOAP using XML over HTTP, a URI and a SOAPAction are required. Non HTTP and non pointy-bracket serializations of the XML Infoset should also be supportable. A concrete example: a binary message sent over MQSeries may be a vital part of a flow of business process.

[Sam Ruby]

I was hoping Sam would pick this up :) What I am (not clear enough) saying is that bindings are not the job of the primary contract description in the presence of routing. First, I want SoapAction: to die with WSDL and see all SOAP stacks dispatch on the message and not on information that's not even part of the message. Second, when you go and pick up the schema, you are going to pick up the policy and there you should also be able to pick up a WS-Referral instance (or whatever that'll turn into when the current wave of specs is complete). There you have the endpoint binding. That's essential, because before I can submit to your MQSeries, I will talk to my MSMQ and (implicitly) ask it to drop it into Host Integration Server that'll drop it into your MQSeries queue and therefore your MQSeries binding won't be of much immediate help to me.

Updated:

Leave a Comment