Bad specifications are a major part of the issue with interoperability
problems. In the case of SOAP itself, the people who wrote the
specification left too much unspecified and too many options. In the
case of XML Schema, the specification is long, complex, and confusing -
and also provides too many options.
WS-I helped a lot with the basic SOAP features, but didn't address
Schema - and Schema is increasingly where the interoperability problems
originate (both directly, when applications use Schema constructs that
don't work well across frameworks, and indirectly, when the framework
itself has problems - as in this case). I give some recommendations in
this area as part of some of my presentations. I just posted the slides
from my "SOA for Developers" workshop, which includes a fairly extensive
chunk on schema, at
http://www.sosnoski.com/jibx-wiki/space/axis2-jibx/soa-for-devs
There is an effort in progress to come up with a sort of WS-I for Schema
equivalent, through the W3C "XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working
Group" (http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/). It looks like the
working group is doing a good job on this. I especially like the way
they're defining patterns that can easily be tested in Schema instances.
Hopefully within a year or so everyone will be able to use the basic
patterns and know that they'll be handled properly by all the major data
binding frameworks (or use some of the advanced ones, and know that
they'll be limiting themselves to selected frameworks).
- Dennis
DBDavide wrote:
...
<ranting>
Too many interoperability issues in real world... everything works smootly
only if both end points uses the same product or I'm really really lucky.
- If I'm implementing both server and client I don't see the advantage of
using a so complicated technology.
- If I'm implementing just one side, the automagically generated wsdl or
automagically generated client stubs from wsdl it's really a dicer's oath
:-) 99% of the time you finish digging into wsdl editing or on the wire
analisys...
I was caught in between :-) I'm implementing both sides and I have two
products: Axis on the server side and JBossWS on client side. I wouldn't
wish it upon my worst enemy: time spent on this technology is becoming
nearly the same time spent implementing the real business logic.
I think that sometime we lose sight of our real targets. I think that WS-*
are what I call a "tool" technology, They are a help for our applications.
Using a screwdriver shouldn't be harder than building a car.
How many times, deployng and managing an applications into an application
server is far more complicated than application itself? If it's happen,
probably we missed something.
</ranting>
Bye
--
Davide
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
