WSDL Debate



Clemens Vasters weighs in on the current WSDL is too <…> debate:

Hard or not hard — can we agree on “It’s just not enough” ? 🙂 My main problem with WSDL is that it tries to do 2 things (message contract and transport mapping), while it should do 3 things (message contract, service contract and transport mapping), hnowever at the same time, one thing (WSDL) shouldn’t do all these 3 things altogether but leave them two 3 separate things: A message contract definition language (defines soap:Body content), a service contract definition language (soap:Header) and a “web services binding language” that maps messages combined with services to transports.

I definately would not mind three straightforward description languages (MCDL, SCDL, and WSBL) if they were easy to use (with boilderplates or whizzy programs), solved more problems than WSDL does, and were easy to use.  I think Greg Reinacker’s earlier point that schemas are important is true too.

Welcome to As the Web Services Turn.