XML.com: XML From the Inside Out
oreilly.comSafari Bookshelf.Conferences.

advertisement

We're happy to welcome Rich Salz back to his XML.com column after a long absence. Rich was in a very serious accident, and we're all lucky to have him back. -- Editor.

I recently read the Last Call drafts from the Web Services Description Working Group of the W3C. I had no choice; I was on a cross-country flight, my laptop batteries were dead, and the in-flight movie was execrable.

The WG has actually produced three documents:

To put it simply, these specifications are astoundingly bad. The comment period ended October 4, although looking at the comment list archive shows that comments were still being received, and processed, as recently as last week. According to W3C procedure, at this point the Director can send the documents back to the group, or he can allow them to move forward and ask for implementation information as the next step in becoming an official W3C Recommendation.

It is my feverent hope that not only will Tim Berners-Lee send the documents back to the working group, but that he'll attend their next face-to-face meeting and spank everyone involved. WSDL 2.0 is the worst example of architecture astronautics I have ever seen. While these documents might be useful to someone developing a WSDL tool, they are practically useless for a web services developer who wants to use WSDL to define their interface.

Let me give three examples of what is wrong with WSDL 2.0.

No Standard WSDL File

The WSDL 2.0 document never defines what a WSDL file looks like. At first, this looks like an oversight. For example, the "XML representation" of a fault component is written like this:


    <fault>
        name="xs:NCName" element="xs:Qname"?>
        <documentation />?
        [ <feature /> | <property /> ] *
    </fault>

First of all, the description is very misleading; it's hard to see how this admixture of regular expressions and XML element syntax can be called an "XML representation." The text that describes the syntax (in section 1.2), in fact, calls it pseudo-schema and labels it non-normative, meaning that it's not an official part of the specification. The description of this pseudo-schema is very informal. It ends with the following sentence: "Attributes are conventionally assigned a value which corresponds to their type, as defined in the normative schema."

This sentence has two problems. The first is that the phrase "conventionally assigned" is far too informal for use in such a formal specification. For example, the element attribute of a message reference is defined as follows:


    element="union of xs:QName, xs:Token"?

In other words, it's just psuedo-code: It can't be processed by a machine, let alone any standard XML tools. This means it can't be syntax-checked, and there's no way to build up any test cases to see if the definition is actually correct and if it does what the specification authors intended. (For example, the fault shown above leaves out extension points.) All of these problems could have been avoided by using the official schema language of the W3C:


    <xs:attribute name="element" minOccurs="0">
        <xs:union memberTypes="xs:Qname xs:Token"/>
    </xs:attribute>

But there is an even bigger problem with the sentence quoted above: there is no normative schema.

At this point, you turn to the conformance section of the specification and see the following sentence:

Note that the WSDL language is defined in terms of the component model defined by this specification. As such, it is explicitly NOT a conformance requirement to be able to process documents encoded in a particular version of XML, in particular XML 1.1

Think about the implications of this. XML web services are all about interoperability. (The Web Services Activity Statement, of which the WSDL Working Group is a part, says this is fundamental: "Web services provide a standard means of interoperating between different software applications, running on a variety of platforms and/or frameworks.") WSDL is the way these services are supposed to be defined. Yet the WSDL language itself is defined in terms of a local data model. We can't even talk about "comparing two WSDL files" since the 2.0 specifications don't define such a thing.

The WSDL specification deliberately refused to define an interopable way of exchanging WSDL definitions across multiple systems. The following, if it results in a proper Infoset, could be a compliant WSDL 2.0 file:


    #include "wsdl.h"
    extern void hello_world(const char* text);

That's right, as of WSDL 2.0, WSDL files are no longer portable. This cannot be a step forward.

Yet Another Data Model

WSDL 2.0 introduces yet another XML data model, the WSDL component. By now, I've lost count of how many data models there are, but I know we have XPath 1.0, XQuery, Infoset (both pre- and post-schema validation), and almost every RPC vendor has an XML-datatype model of its own.

In WSDL 2.0, a component is a typed set of properties. Although not defined in the specification, a property is a collection of related data. For example, an operation component will have the following properties:

  • name--the name of the operation
  • target namespace--from the enclosing definition element
  • fault references--from the infault and outfault child elements

One thing to note is that some information comes from "up" the tree, such as the target namespace, and some information comes from "down" the tree, such as fault information. Information rarely percolates up the tree; compare with the concept of in-scope namespaces, for example. Unfortunately, it can get even worse. Since a WSDL definition can import other WSDL definitions, a component's properties can also include "up and over" data from data at the same level in the tree.

Web services developers will need to deal with this issue if they ever need to see whether two components are compatible. They cannot just start at the comparable elements (okay, tree nodes) and walk through the tree. They will have to keep the memory model in their heads as they walk through the two definitions. (I keep wanting to write, "as they flip through the two files," but I'm trying to stick with what the specifications define.)

As a minor complaint, the specification uses curly brackets to delimit property names, as in {target namespace}. The Infoset established the convention of square brackets, as in [children]. The combination is typographically confusing, as when you read that "the {features} property comes from the feature element information items in the [children] element information items, if any."

Web services developers will have to understand the component model because of the decisions WSDL 2.0 made about multi-faceted servers. As I'll explain in the next section, component equality becomes very important now.

COM Comes Back

WSDL 2.0 renamed portType to interface, which was sensible. They also defined an inheritance model, which turns out to be less so.

In WSDL 1.0, a service could implement multiple ports. This fits with the conventional model for implementing IETF/Internet servers: each TCP port defines its own language (SMTP, NNTP, etc.), and a single executable can implement multiple protocols, by using the port number to de-multiplex (or dispatch) to the appropriate handlers.

XML doesn't have this concept of distinct port numbers. The closest analogue would be to declare that the (namespace, localname) tuple of every operation be unique, and this is what the WG decided to do. In other words, operating overloading has been removed, unless the WSDL definition defines an extension point to otherwise disambiguate between operations. I don't have a problem with this, but some others, including two of the specification editors, feel it's limiting and have raised a formal objection to this decision.

I don't think it's a good sign when WG editors raise objections to a specification in Last Call state.

Since a service can only implement one interface, how does WSDL 2.0 provide extensibility and an acceptable programming model? They did it by adding information inheritance. At first glance, it looks like Java inheritance, and the specification talks about "extending an interface." Looking beneath the surface, however, it's really just "extending the vtable," just like COM.

More from Rich Salz

SOA Made Real

SOA Made Simple

The xml:id Conundrum

Freeze the Core

XKMS Messages in Detail

In addition, WSDL 2.0 really allows for multiple inheritance; you can define an interface D that extends C and B, when both of them in turn extend the base interface A. In order to make sure that the two intermediate interfaces don't conflict--for example, that they don't define two different operations with the same Schema element--the WSDL specification defines sets of rules for determining if two components are equivalent. As you should expect, equivalence basically comes down to checking for property equality. This means, as a web services developer, if you are implementing and extending someone else's service definition, you will spend time going up, down, and over through the two trees, trying to find out if there are any conflicts and, if so, where they are.

The alternative is to just trust and hope that the WSDL 2.0 tools--the ones you use and the ones all your clients use--get it right. And in a bit of a reality check, not even the specification is that naive. In fact, in several places it suggest that it is "good practice" to ensure that the names of all items within a component are unique. This will not help re-use and decentralized architecture, as it requires global coordination of names within a namespace. Why not just use different namespaces? They can't because of the one interface per service decision.

Stop Signs

I could go on and on, but I won't. I've tried to show why I think that WSDL 2.0 is fundamentally flawed and should be sent back to the WG. Please, Tim, reject these Last Call documents.



1 to 7 of 7
1 to 7 of 7