[Xen-API] RE: why not WSDL

["Aggarwal, Ajay" <Ajay.Aggarwal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ian. Could you clarify on " Good language bindings typically do
rather more than just expose the underlying RPCs directly". What "more"
are you hinting here?

And when you say "it easy to generate simple bindings for xml-rpc in
many languages anyhow", do you mean manually or are there some tools to
auto generate them? I am looking at the Java bindings in the SDK and
they look like manually created, but I may be wrong. And if manual, this
work does not seem trivial.

Agreed on the "light weight" aspect of the xml-rpc.

-Ajay

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Pratt [mailto:Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:30 PM
To: Aggarwal, Ajay; xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ian Pratt
Subject: RE: why not WSDL

> I am relatively new to this XEN API, so maybe this has already been
> discussed but I could not find any reference of it so far. I was
wondering
> why not support WSDL and schema instead of simple XML-RPC interface.
With
> WSDL, there are tools available to automatically generate client side
> stubs in different languages.  But with XML-RPC one has to manually
create
> the client side bindings.
> 
> With all the tools available today, it's so much easier to work with
WSDL
> and schema both on the client and server side. I was wondering why the
> open source Xen as well as Citrix is still sticking to the *old*
XML-RPC
> interface.

A lot of folk (including me) prefer xml-rpc. It's a lot simpler and less
heavy weight.

Good language bindings typically do rather more than just expose the
underlying RPCs directly, and WSDL doesn't help with that. Besides, it
easy to generate simple bindings for xml-rpc in many languages anyhow. 


Ian  

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api