WADL vs. WSDL

Web Application Description Language (WADL) The Web Application Description Language (WADL) is a machine-readable XML description of Web services based on HTTP. WADL models the services a company offers, and their relationships. WADL aims to simplify the reuse of Web resources based on the web’s current HTTP architecture. It is independent of the framework and language and seeks to facilitate the reuse of applications in a web browser beyond the simple use. WADL is SOAP’s Web Services Description Language REST counterpart, and can also be used to describe REST web services. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) The Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is an XML-based interface description language that is used to define the functionality a web service offers. The acronym is often used for any particular WSDL description of a web service (often known as a WSDL file), which includes a machine-readable explanation of how to access the service, what conditions it requires, and what data structures it returns. Hence its function in a programming language is roughly similar to that of a type signature. Comparison between WADL vs. WSDL: WADL WSDL Web Application Description Language Web Service Description Language XML to describe RESTful web services XML to describe SOAP-based web services A client can load a WADL file and can access the complete functionality of the web service A client can load a WSDL file and get to know what methods web service, arguments, methods expect, which data type it returns can call WADL is the REST equivalent of SOAP’s web service description language Machine-readable description with the current version WADL is lightweight, easy to understand and write Compared to WADL, WSDL is difficult to write and understand It does not have binding to SMTP servers It has more binding to SMTP servers Simple by Design Complex by design There is no Authentication involved for web services Authentication is involved in web services It requires a simple URI Template mechanism The user needs to define the XML input message to use the URI Template mechanism It has a Limited Scope compared to WSDL It has more scope compared to WADL W3C does not recommend WADL interface W3C recommends WSDL interface WADL covers all user expectations except Authentication, which is as simple as REST WSDL is more flexible than WADL