|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML over HTTP: SOAP and ...?
It's a familiar argument. I remember people saying they wouldn't use C, because they could do everything in assembler that they could do in C. But when I find myself writing the same code over and over, I always wish it could be simpler, so then I implement another layer, and voila it gets simpler. Then I can use my brain to make it complex again. Dave PS: This list has not been working too well. I wrote an essay yesterday about being "anti-Microsoft" but I don't think anyone saw it. Oh well. I guess I'm branded for life! It's a Microsoft conspiracy. (Not.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Haustein" <haustein@k...> To: <xml-dev@x...> Cc: "David Megginson" <david@m...> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 2:38 AM Subject: Re: XML over HTTP: SOAP and ...? > David Megginson wrote: > > > > Yes, and that's how a lot of people do it. The potential advantage of > > an RPC layer is that it gives a standard way to invoke specific > > services on either side, so it's possible to write generic, reusable > > higher-level libraries; for example, you could call x = y.getSomething(); > > and not know (or have to know) whether y.getSomething() was a method > > on a local object or an HTTP transaction. > > At least, with SOAP you have the choice: > You can use transparent RPC or do everything > "by hand" like you would do using direct socket > connections. Especially if you don't like > transparent access to remote procedures and prefer > direct socket connections, dealing with SOAP seems > much simpler than decoding/encoding binary formats > like IIOP or similar "by hand". So the > offer is not just another RPC mechanism but > the pontential to bring both worlds together. > > For example, I wouldn't expect to get > IIOP on my palm pilot, but a nice little > XML (CXML) parser, why not? And why should > I wait for SyncML or RDF extensions if > I can communicate with (e.g.) Outlook using > SOAP? > > In my opinion, one of the most interesting > things SOAP offers is a standard way > to serialize higer level data structures > (much more pragmatically than RDF). W3 and > OMG failed in provide anything really useable > so far. However, I would still prefer > XML-RPC + a nice object serilization > format over SOAP just because I do not want > to depend on MS (Just look at RTF)... > > Best regards > > Stefan > > > > > -- > Stefan Haustein > University of Dortmund > Computer Science VIII > www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de > > *************************************************************************** > This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. > To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev > List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








