[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Non-schema approach to web service design: comments?
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Tech Rams <techmailing@y...> wrote: >Whether or not we like it, XSD/WSDL are based on >programmatic and object-oriented data structures. If Err, what? I s'pose it depends on which version of WSDL you're talking about; 1.1 was designed to support SOAP when SOAP was still an acronym. For that matter, WSDL 2.0 can be viewed through the prism of object-oriented programming or even (ugh) RPC. It can also be viewed, however, as a contract for the exchange of messages. And it isn't tied exclusively to W3C XML Schema, either. As for W3C XML Schema, describing it as based on programmatic and object-oriented data structures is, at best,... kind. In fact, the requirements given to the working group that ultimately produced it were as psychotic as the ultimate result (hardly a surprise), requiring that the language be able to specify traditional "markup" types, database types (possibly one could refer to this as "programmatic", but I wouldn't), certain over-hyped internal pseudo-pointer types, as well as the noted 'programmatic' types (which I think might be better labelled as 'register types', conforming to bit patterns in CPU registers). W3C XML Schema has absolutely nothing object-oriented about it, though. Its techniques for deriving data structures from previously-defined types (extension and restriction) does *not* model inheritance in object-oriented languages. Worst of all, many of its types differ in significant detail from the types (in various and sundry languages) to which they are mapped, with consequences that are amusing or disastrous (depending upon your sense of humor and your job security when it occurs). Possibly we're stuck living with this. And probably we're stuck with procedural and object-oriented languages ruling the roost and defining the consensus set of datatypes. That doesn't, however, make W3C XML Schema's set of types match the consensus set, nor does it make it object-oriented. Likewise, it's hard to regard WSDL 1.1 as object-oriented when it lacks the facility to base one portType on the definition of another, though there are OO dialects that use aggregation to the exclusion of inheritance. Nor is it likely (in my opinion, which is undoubtedly biased given that I've spent many hours teleconferencing on the subject) that we'll be "stuck with" WSDL 1.1 once 2.0 is completed (soon, I hope), nor is it necessary to view WSDL 2.0 as exclusively representing procedural or OO programming models. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com Confidence: a feeling peculiar to the stage just before full comprehension of the problem.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|