Yes, something similar .. but strictly adhering to the WSDL 2.0 component
model so that in effect the new language is just a different serialization
fo the same model. I would also probably drop reusable interfaces etc. in
favor of the 80% case where one just defines the interface for a single
service - then there's no need to name it, cross reference it etc..
Yes adding RNC is not difficult but its not trivial to "data bind" RNC. Or
that's what James (Clark) keeps telling me .. I haven't argued the details
out with him; but will one of these days.
Its also possible to do something similar for a subset of XSD and get
something quite useful I think.
Interested? Shall we start an Apache Lab for it??
Sanjiva.
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
You mean something like that ?
http://blogs.iona.com/ohurley/2007/05/this_is_not_wsdl.html
Add RNC to it and the result would be awesome !
On 9/21/07, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1. I've been meaning to do a "normal" syntax for WSDL 2.0 for a while but
haven't quite gotten to it yet. Given the way WSDL 2.0 is defined its
actually quite straightforward and likely a hell of a lot more usable for
humans than the XML syntax.
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
