[ome-devel] C/C++ client library for OME::Remote

[Harry Hochheiser]

Chris:

My experience with these standards is admittedly quite limited, but I 
think the potential benefits in terms of interoperatbiility and 
adherence to community standards might make WSDL worth considering.  
WSDL would allows us to support UDDI  for resource discovery, or 
possibly to integrate with related biology service architectures like 
BioMoby (biomogy.org). Furthermore, WSDL is used in the Grid Computing 
world, so if we want to play in that arena...

I am well aware that there are reasons to not like SOAP - i wouldn't 
advocate for making this change unless the benefits were clear. 
however, it's worth considering.

In any case, I agree completely that documenting the XML-RPC calls 
would be a great start. How hard would it be to automagically generate 
some sort of appropriate docs from the Perl source code?

-harry


> I'm not sure exactly why people are talking about WSDL. WSDL is 
> designed
> for SOAP, not XML-RPC. We have an XML-RPC web services implementation,
> not SOAP. Why you'd need automatic stub generation and service
> advertisment for such a simple RPC protocol I have no idea. Document
> the exposed XML-RPC procedure calls and forget about a layer of complex
> and overly verbose XML descriptors on top.
> |..