Usefulness of WSDL

Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net> Fri, 09 November 2007 18:55 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqZ19-0005YC-6y; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:55:47 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IqZ17-0005UP-5X for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:55:45 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqZ16-0005Th-Re for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:55:44 -0500
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net ([165.212.64.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqZ11-0001mb-H8 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:55:44 -0500
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452B92A6C for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:55:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.34P) with ESMTP id XID151Lkis4K6024Xo2; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:55:36 -0000
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN ldusseault@commerce.net GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID151Lkis4K6024Xo2
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([74.95.2.169]) by GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:55:34 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
To: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <B5F1E31A-AD2B-42DB-A12E-8C26843A870C@commerce.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-18--568516901"
From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
Subject: Usefulness of WSDL
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:55:31 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2007 18:55:34.0725 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C07F750:01C82302]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

I see WSDL proposed for some spec in the IETF every so often but  
nobody's ever explained to me what it solves.  James Snell who has  
more experience than me in the matter wrote:

"Those who are familiar with my history with IBM should know that I  
was once a *major* proponent of the WS-* approach. I was one of the  
original members of the IBM Emerging Technologies Toolkit team, I  
wrote so many articles on the subject during my first year with IBM  
that I was able to pay a down payment on my house without touching a  
dime of savings or regular paycheck, and I was involved in most of  
the internal efforts to design and prototype nearly all of the WS-*  
specifications. However, over the last two years I haven’t written a  
single line of code that has anything to do with WS-*. The reason for  
this change is simple: when I was working on WS-*, I never once  
worked on an application that solved a real business need. Everything  
I wrote back then were demos. Now that I’m working for IBM’s WebAhead  
group, building and supporting applications that are being used by  
tens of thousands of my fellow IBMers, I haven’t come across a single  
use case where WS-* would be a suitable fit."

Anybody got counter-arguments or is this a reasonable indictment?

Lisa

[from James' blog: http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=798]