Re: ? on WSDL spec

[Stuart Thomson <st...@swtsoftware.com>]

Thank deity that Stroustrup and Gosling weren't afraid of overloading.

Which languages don't support overloading ? Cobol and Fortran may get
the blame. How about VB, the M$ chap seemed quite opposed to
overloading.

Have the people on the WSDL committee ever delivered real applications,
or are they living in cloud cuckoo land ?

Can we now expect Axis to support a mapping between dummy (wsdl) names
and implementation (overloaded) names. Will .net support this ? Will
every implementation need to define its own solution! So much for
standardisation.

Or should we just abandon WSDL 1.2 ?

Cheers
Stuart

butek@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> Overloading is bad??!? You ain't much of an OO fan, are you Tom?
> 
> Russell Butek
> butek@us.ibm.com
> 
> Please respond to axis-user@xml.apache.org
> 
> To: "'axis-user@xml.apache.org'" <ax...@xml.apache.org>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: ? on WSDL spec
> 
> In a nutshell, because overloading is bad.  :-)
> 
> It complicated and not all languages support overloading.  In the case
> of omitted arguments the dispatching of overloaded methods (i.e. which
> one to call) is ambiguous.  The case was also made the you can
> accomplish overloading using XML Schema.
> 
> See the mailing list archives at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/ for (possibly) more
> details.
> 
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Spork [mailto:m.spork@qut.edu.au]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:05 PM
> To: axis-user@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ? on WSDL spec
> 
> Tom Jordahl wrote:
> 
> >Yes, you can do operator overloading in WSDL 1.1 and Axis supports
> it.
> >
> >Be advised however, that the W3C WSDL working group has removed
> operator overloading from the (very draft) WSDL 1.2 spec.
> >
> >--
> >Tom Jordahl
> >Macromedia
> >
> >
> Tom,
> 
> Any idea on _why_ it has been removed? - I googled but can't find
> anything on this.
> 
> Murray