Cameron Laird's personal notes on WSDL validation
Yes, yes, I know, in principle all WSDL instances are outputs
of automatic processes, and therefore need no validation
(compare, though, "WSDL first").
I'll summarize my own experience: I frequently find value
in validation of a WSDL, that is, I frequently am involved
in invalid WSDL instances.
Available validators impress me far less as an ensemble than
the glowing descriptions I've found of them. Here are my
own notes on the only ones I've found worth consideration:
- On-line (that is, implemented as Web applications):
- the XMethods
on-line validator is far, far too permissive, and its
"drill-down" reports much less depth and breadth than
it might or than I think it should. Yes, I'm aware
that a comment on Stack Overflow, for example, asserts,
"This site is good ..." It's not--at least not for the
purpose of WSDL validation.
- the eXtc
WSDL Validator is quite weak; I haven't figured
out yet what it (in)validates.
- I've rapidly become fond of
Diagnostics 8. For the purpose of WSDL
validation, it's simply an update of SOAPscope--except
that it's available without a fee! While I still pine
for a command-line interface and/or a (more) Web-based
application, Actional Diagnostics gives a lot of value.
- Mindreef's SOAPscope 2.0 includes a quality Analyzer.
While I often felt lost during initial installation,
and re-analysis requires two to four mouse clicks, I
have found SOAPscope valuable, if expensive, in this role.
- While there's a lot to like about soapUI, I never did
figure out how to ask it to "Check WSI Compliance",
and my attempts to install the named compliance tools
all failed. Slightly perturbed WSDL instances resulted
in diagnostics no more illuminating than
- pocketSOAP's validator depends on zvon, which, as of
this writing, returns only error pages.
Laird's index to