I used to think that WSDL was very complex. I'm not quite sure anymore.
Once I understood some key concepts, things started to make sense, in that sort of
Kafkaesque sort of way. I'm talking about things like Abstract WSDL vs. Concrete WSDL.

  • There are a few reasons I think WSDL appears so complex when you first
    approach it:

    WSDL is usually generated by tools; and those tools generate awfully lengthy and complex-seeming
    WSDL documents. That hides the basic truths of WSDL behind a shroud of mistery. That
    ain't good.

  • The reason most WSDL documents are so complex is not that the basic
    building blocks themselves are complex, but rather that most of the document is spent
    describing (and usually re-describing) the message schema used by the defined operations.


Now, let's not kid ourselves. XSD can be both daunting and pretty "chatty"
(as in XSD descriptions can be pretty lengthy even for simple definitions). And by
virtue of this, it can make any WSDL document with inline schema definitions seem
daunting and chatty too!

So let me start my own little possee here and cry: Say No to inline
schema definitions in WSDL! Import is your friend....


Tomas Restrepo

Software developer located in Colombia. Sr. PFE at Microsoft.