IDL与WSDL ----比较 [英] IDL Vs WSDL ---- a comparison

问题描述

有没有人对IDL和WSDL如何相互比较有意见？

他们的表现力是否同样强大？有时候我觉得IDL对于人类而言更容易跟随。另外，

看起来更紧凑。


IDL和WSDL在表达复杂数据类型方面同样强大，

和描述继承和关联关系？

选择其中一个最有说服力的理由是什么？

Does anyone have an opinion on how IDL and WSDL compare to each other?
Are they equally powerful in their "expressive power"? Sometimes it
appears to me that IDL is a little easier for humans to follow. Also,
it appears to be more compact.

Are IDL and WSDL equally powerful in expressing complex data types,
and describing inheritance and association relationships? What would
be the most compelling reasons to choose one over the other?

推荐答案

请找一篇关于IDL和WSDL - A Comparison的文章。由Sankhya Technologies在Nasscom（印度最大的软件之一，b $ b公司协会之一）发布了

，

http://www.products.nasscom.org/artd...629& cat_id = 474


最诚挚的问候，


~Vivekanandan M


- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------


Vivekanandan M

Sankhya Technologies Private Limited，

＃30-15-58，Silver Willow，

Third FLoor，DabaGardens，

维沙卡帕特南 - 530 020印度


电话：+ 91-891-5542666

传真：+ 91-891-5542665

访问我们@： http://www.sankhya.com

us **** @ sta.samsung.com （Generic Usenet Account）在留言中写道ws：< 90 ************************* @ posting.google.c om> ...

Hi ,

Please find an article on "IDL and WSDL - A Comparison" published
by Sankhya Technologies at Nasscom (one of the biggest software
companies association in India),

http://www.products.nasscom.org/artd...629&cat_id=474

Best Regards,

~Vivekanandan M

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Vivekanandan M
Sankhya Technologies Private Limited,
#30-15-58, "Silver Willow",
Third FLoor, DabaGardens,
Visakhapatnam - 530 020 INDIA

Tel : [phone]
Fax : [phone]

Visit us @ : http://www.sankhya.com

us****@sta.samsung.com (Generic Usenet Account) wrote in message news:<90*************************@posting.google.c om>...

任何人都对IDL和WSDL如何相互比较有意见？
他们的表现力是否同样强大？有时它在我看来IDL对人类来说更容易跟随。此外，它看起来更紧凑。

IDL和WSDL在表达复杂数据类型，描述继承和关联关系方面同样强大吗？什么会是最有说服力的理由选择其中一个？

Does anyone have an opinion on how IDL and WSDL compare to each other?
Are they equally powerful in their "expressive power"? Sometimes it
appears to me that IDL is a little easier for humans to follow. Also,
it appears to be more compact.

Are IDL and WSDL equally powerful in expressing complex data types,
and describing inheritance and association relationships? What would
be the most compelling reasons to choose one over the other?

Generic Usenet Account写道：

Generic Usenet Account wrote:

有没有人对IDL和WSDL如何相互比较有意见？
它们在表现力方面同样强大吗？有时它在我看来IDL对人类来说更容易跟随。此外，它看起来更紧凑。


IDL和WSDL属于不同的技术领域（CORBA和Web服务

，虽然它们是可互换的，但IDL可能来自

WSDL，反之亦然。）。


我也同意，IDL很少（或很多）人类更容易遵循和

更紧凑。



IDL和WSDL在表达复杂数据类型，描述继承和关联关系方面同样强大吗？ 。

Does anyone have an opinion on how IDL and WSDL compare to each other?
Are they equally powerful in their "expressive power"? Sometimes it
appears to me that IDL is a little easier for humans to follow. Also,
it appears to be more compact.
IDL and WSDL belong to different technology domain (CORBA and Web Services
resp. and though they are inter convertible i.e. IDL may be generated from
WSDL and vice versa.).

I agree too, that IDL is little (or much) easier for humans to follow and
is more compact.


Are IDL and WSDL equally powerful in expressing complex data types,
and describing inheritance and association relationships? .

我相信他们在表达复杂数据类型等方面同样强大。

选择其中一个最有说服力的理由就像是选择

a中间件（CORBA）到Web服务。


虽然中间件技术已经成熟的标准化开发，

部署和运行时支持（随着（CCM）CORBA变得更强大

组件模型）Web服务仍然成熟。它在安全性，交易，分销，有状态和b $ b互动等方面仍然缺乏标准化，仅举几例。


你可以通过Markus V？lter在Components，

Remoting Middleware and Webservices上找到一个有趣的演示文稿。以及它们如何组合在一起，

可在以下网站获得

http://www.voelter.de/conferences/presentations.html

希望这会有所帮助。

问候，

Shashank

I believe they are equally powerful in expressing complex data types etc.
Well most compelling reasons to choose one over the other is like choosing
a middleware (CORBA) to Web Service.

While middleware technologies have matured standardized development,
deployment and run time support (becoming more powerful with (CCM) CORBA
Component Model) the web services is still to mature. It still lacks
standardization in security, transaction, distribution, stateful
interaction etc. to name a few.

You may find an interesting presentation by Markus V?lter on "Components,
Remoting Middleware and Webservices" and how all of them fit together,
available at following site

http://www.voelter.de/conferences/presentations.html

hope this helps.
regards,
Shashank

us **** @ sta.samsung.com （Generic Usenet Account）在留言中写道：< 90 ******************* ******@posting.google.c om> ...

us****@sta.samsung.com (Generic Usenet Account) wrote in message news:<90*************************@posting.google.c om>...

有没有人对IDL和WSDL如何相互比较有意见？
他们是否同样强大表达能力？有时它在我看来IDL对人类来说更容易跟随。此外，它看起来更紧凑。


怎么可能??? !!!我认为选择XML是因为它是

人类可读???


不是。


< definitions name =" StockQuoteService"

targetNamespace =" http://argonne.com/stockquoteservice.wsdl"

xmlns：tns =" http：// argonne。 com / stockquoteservice.wsdl"

xmlns：xsd1 =" http://argonne.com/stockquoteservice.xsd"

xmlns：soap =" http：// schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"

xmlns：wsdl =" http：//schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/">

< wsdl：types>

< xsd：schema targetNamespace =" http://argonne.com/stockquoteservice.xsd"

xmlns：xsd =" http ：//www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema">

< xsd：element name =" LastSaleRequest">

< xsd： complexType>

< xsd：all>

< xsd：element name =" stockSymbol" type =" string" />

< / xsd：all>

< / xsd：complexType>

< / xsd：element>

< xsd：element name =" LastSalePrice">

xsd：< complexType>

< xsd ：all>

< xsd：element name =" price" type =" float" />

< / xsd：all>

< / xsd：complexType>

< / xsd：element>

< / xsd：schema>

< / wsdl：types>

< wsdl：message name =" ; getLastSaleInput">

< wsdl：part name =" body" element =" xsd1：LastSaleRequest" />

< / wsdl：message>

< wsdl：message name =" getLastSaleOutput">

< wsdl：part name =" body" element =" xsd1：LastSalePrice" />

< / wsdl：message>

< wsdl：portType name =" StockQuoteServicePortType">

< wsdl：operation name =" getLastSale">

< wsdl：input message =" tns：getLastSaleInput" />

< wsdl：output message =" tns：getLastSaleOutput" />

< / wsdl：operation>

< / wsdl：portType>

< wsdl：binding name =" StockQuoteServiceSoapBinding"

type =" tns：StockQuoteServicePortType">

< soap：binding style ="文件

transport =" http：//schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http" />

< wsdl：operation name =" getLastSale" >

< soap：operation soapAction =" http://argonne.com/getLastSale" />

< wsdl：input>

< soap：body use =" literal" />

< / wsdl：input>

< wsdl：output>

< soap：body use =" literal" />

< / wsdl：output>

< / wsdl：operation>

< / wsdl：binding>

< wsdl：service name =" StockQuoteService">

< wsdl：documentation> Argonne Technologies股票报价

服务< / documentation>

< wsdl：port name =" StockQuoteServicePort"

binding =" tns：StockQuoteServiceBinding" >

< soap：地址

location =" http://argonne.com/StockQuoteService" />

< / wsdl：port>

< / wsdl：service>


/ * StockService IDL - 完全不可读* /

模块stockServices {


typedef float LastSalePrice;


struct LastSaleRequest {

string stockSymbol;

};


界面StockService {

LastSalePrice getLastSale（在LastSaleRequest请求中）;

} ;

};


IDL和WSDL在表达复杂数据类型，描述继承和关联关系方面同样强大吗？


除了简单对象访问协议（SOAP）具有

之外，没有对象的概念，这绝不简单吗？


WSDL没有继承或对象的概念。当然，过度使用细粒度分布式对象确实给CORBA带来了早期的表现（虽然没有比最初的过度使用更糟糕的

J2EE Entity Beans），有时需要在同一服务器中公开一些实现相同接口的有状态对象。

没有对象的概念身份，这是不可能的

WSDL / SOAP，或者至少不是微不足道的。


同样，公认的做法是公开单身服务。对象，

即

门面模式，并将实体对象保留在立面后面。由于

CORBA / IDL可以实现任一模型，许多人认为CORBA / IDL在这方面更强大。另一方面，一些人认为

这种能力使得CORBA / IDL更少简单。那个网站

服务/ SOAP / WSDL。

选择其中一个最有说服力的理由是什么？

Does anyone have an opinion on how IDL and WSDL compare to each other?
Are they equally powerful in their "expressive power"? Sometimes it
appears to me that IDL is a little easier for humans to follow. Also,
it appears to be more compact.
How is that possible???!!! I thought XML was selected because it was
human readable???

Not.

<definitions name="StockQuoteService"
targetNamespace="http://argonne.com/stockquoteservice.wsdl"
xmlns:tns="http://argonne.com/stockquoteservice.wsdl"
xmlns:xsd1="http://argonne.com/stockquoteservice.xsd"
xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/">
<wsdl:types>
<xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://argonne.com/stockquoteservice.xsd"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema">
<xsd:element name="LastSaleRequest">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:all>
<xsd:element name="stockSymbol" type="string"/>
</xsd:all>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="LastSalePrice">
xsd:<complexType>
<xsd:all>
<xsd:element name="price" type="float"/>
</xsd:all>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:schema>
</wsdl:types>
<wsdl:message name="getLastSaleInput">
<wsdl:part name="body" element="xsd1:LastSaleRequest"/>
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:message name="getLastSaleOutput">
<wsdl:part name="body" element="xsd1:LastSalePrice"/>
</wsdl:message>
<wsdl:portType name="StockQuoteServicePortType">
<wsdl:operation name="getLastSale">
<wsdl:input message="tns:getLastSaleInput"/>
<wsdl:output message="tns:getLastSaleOutput"/>
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:portType>
<wsdl:binding name="StockQuoteServiceSoapBinding"
type="tns:StockQuoteServicePortType">
<soap:binding style="document"
transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"/>
<wsdl:operation name="getLastSale">
<soap:operation soapAction="http://argonne.com/getLastSale"/>
<wsdl:input>
<soap:body use="literal"/>
</wsdl:input>
<wsdl:output>
<soap:body use="literal"/>
</wsdl:output>
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:binding>
<wsdl:service name="StockQuoteService">
<wsdl:documentation>Argonne Technologies Stock Quote
Service</documentation>
<wsdl:port name="StockQuoteServicePort"
binding="tns:StockQuoteServiceBinding">
<soap:address
location="http://argonne.com/StockQuoteService"/>
</wsdl:port>
</wsdl:service>

/* StockService IDL - not at all readable */

module stockServices {

typedef float LastSalePrice;

struct LastSaleRequest {
string stockSymbol;
};

interface StockService {
LastSalePrice getLastSale(in LastSaleRequest request);
};
};


Are IDL and WSDL equally powerful in expressing complex data types,
and describing inheritance and association relationships?
Other than the fact that the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) has
no concept of Objects, and is in no way simple?

WSDL has no concept of inheritance or objects. Granted, the overuse
of fine-grained distributed objects did give CORBA a performance black
eye in its early days (although no worse than the initial overuse of
J2EE Entity Beans), it is sometimes necessary to expose a handful of
stateful objects implementing the same interface in the same server.
Without the concept of object identity, this is not possible with
WSDL/SOAP, or at least not trivial.

Again, accepted practice is to expose singleton "service" objects,
i.e.
facade pattern, and keep entity objects behind the facade. Since
CORBA/IDL can implement either model, many believe that CORBA/IDL is
more powerful in this respect. On the otherhand, some have argued that
this capability makes CORBA/IDL less "simple" that Web
Services/SOAP/WSDL.
What would
be the most compelling reasons to choose one over the other?

IDL == CORBA ==工作==无聊的技术。


WSDL == Web服务==还不完全==另一个流行语将

放在简历上。


:-)


Mark

IDL == CORBA == Working == Boring ''ol technology.

WSDL == Web Services == Not quite there yet == Another buzzword to put
on a resume.

:-)

Mark

这篇关于IDL与WSDL ----比较的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！