Re: [dss] DSS WSDL

[Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>]

Hi,

I would tend to agree with Ed here as for the actual requirement of 
generating a WDSL within the group... I share his views on that issue.
As for the interop, I would say that the idea of that was to prove that 
the protocol designed and the text generated had enough quality as to 
allow different parties to develop interoperable products. And since the 
beginning we concentrated in the messages more than in transport 
bindings: that was the reason for exchanging requests and replies 
through Wiki, to be able to make interoperability tests without having 
to setting up web services with all the problems that this would cause 
in the different organizations. I still think that this is a perfectly 
maneagable solution and that a big part of the effort in the interop 
should concentrate on the protocol messages more than in dealing with 
the problems that could be derived from setting up web services....In 
any case, I see this as a second phase effort....

Juan Carlos.
ed.shallow@rogers.com wrote:

>For internal inter-op testing amongst ourselves ... sure. Releasing "samples" along with the core ... possibly. Definitively stating within the DSS core that this WSDL is the core's WSDL ... I am not so comfortable. BTW rpc vs doc/lit lifts its head right into the WSDL as you know.
> 
>Ed
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Carlos González-Cadenas <gonzalezcarlos@netfocus.es>
>To: ed.shallow@rogers.com
>Cc: DSS TC List <dss@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2006 9:31:44 AM
>Subject: RE: [dss] DSS WSDL
>
>
>Ed,
> 
>In my opinion the WSDL work to be produced inside the committee (if any) should be aligned to the binding protocols in chapter 6. 
> 
>By now, only SOAP and HTTP (you can also call this one REST) are included. It’s clear that you can imagine DSS messages transported over many transport bindings (you are free to create any other WSDL apart from the TC’s one with the bindings you prefer), but I’m sure that these two protocols present by now in chapter 6 were not chosen randomly.
> 
>So for me, what protocols to include in chapter 6 and the WSDL are different stories (IMHO you want to translate to the WSDL what you have covered in chapter 6, as a misalignment between the two would be quite difficult to explain).
> 
>The “religious” debate RPC/DOC (SOAP-based) was a lower level, implementation detail thing, only trying to make some suggestions on the “actual” draft WSDL, and totally independent from the debate about what transport bindings should appear in DSS chapter 6. This is another completely different story. 
> 
>As for the “tweaking”, obviously I agree, but, IMHO, is a question of best-effort. Publishing a standardized descriptor of the service helps more than not doing it (at last, you can ignore it and keep on going with the XSD only). Code generators for WSDL and XSD are constantly improving, and developers are comfortable with these tools (in many cases, like .NET, you don’t even need to generate anything, it’s transparent to the developer). Many of them will refuse generating the messages “by hand”, and will ask you for a WSDL to generate appropriate stubs (yes, I know that there are also data-binding generators based on XSD, but they're much less frequent).
> 
>The interop thing is only an idea, but at last, we can rely on final users to do that ““interop””.
> 
>Regards,
> 
>Carlos
> 
>Carlos González-Cadenas
>
>  
>