> There is an industry accepted profile - WS-I (see http://www.ws-i.org).
> All the major WebService players are adopting this profile, all the
> major toolkit manufacturers are adopting this profile. *This* is the
> Some of the older toolkits (and toolkits which haven't been maintained)
> will have trouble with doc/lit - but all of the major toolkits now (or
> shortly will) support WS-I thus improving interoperability.
Right. Where 'major' is synonomous with 'commercial'. Basically there are
two camps, the WS-I supporting corporations and the
not-supporting-at-the-moment F/OSS implementations. The middle group of
F/OSS implementations that support it is Very Small.
Looking at the Members group for WS-I, practically all of them are
corporations or governments. Not even Apache Foundation is there.
So, for people not wanting to use Axis, Mono or gSOAP, the F/OSS choice is
to roll your own without the WSDL. This leads to misinterpretations of
what should go where.
Adam had trouble with gSOAP, the code produced from the WSDL by Mono
leaves a lot to be desired (eg everything is a string), which leaves Axis
that doesn't support recordData.
Hence, my suggestion to have an official WS-I WSDL and some 'this should
do the trick' WSDLs.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
I L L U M I N A T I L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/