Not exactly. IDL doesn't tell you how to talk to a service. IDL contains only the type information. WSDL says you what transport protocol you have to use, how to 'bind' SOAP to this transport protocol, etc.
Radovan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Sauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:47 PM Subject: RE: WSDL? in other words, a verbose IDL :-) Frank -----Original Message----- From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: WSDL? Gary, Okay. Perhaps I am overstating things a little bit. WSDL doesn't describe semantic information. It doesn't describe application semantics (e.g., you must call "open" before "action"). It doesn't describe business semantics (payment terms, service level agreements, etc.). It doesn't describe security, routing, and transaction semantics (although it may describe how to represent security, routing and transaction information in the header). But WSDL does tell you everything you need to know to construct a SOAP message and send it to its target. And it does so in a machine-readable format so that a tool can generate the code necessary to make it happen. Best regards, Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Feldman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: WSDL? > > > > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:37 PM > ... > > A WSDL file provides a complete technical description of your > > web service. It describes > > Let's not overstate things. It provides enough information to > generate proxy signatures. It doesn't provide complete > information for technically correct use of the web service. > > For example, as far as I know it doesn't have any > formal mechanism for specifying constraints in order of > method invocation. Thus there is no way I know to formally > specify, in WSDL, that you must invoke the "open" > method before invoking the "action" method. Granted, with > these particular names, it's obvious, but there are other > more complicated situations that may not be. Another example > is complex constraints on argument values. > > Perhaps someone more familiar can correct me if this is wrong. > > Gary > > > ==================================================================== > Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. > The Industry's Leading Provider of > Cross-Platform and Porting Services > ***************************** > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gary Feldman > fax : 1-978-692-5401 Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. > voice: 1-978-251-5431 11 School Street > www : http://www.rtr.com North Chelmsford, MA 01863 > USA
