Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi Simon, Simon said: Actually, Microsoft's done an excellent job with the XMLHTTP and ServerXMLHTTP classes as far as making it easy to do XML+HTTP work. They just, um, don't push that hard as an alternative to SOAP. Didier replies: Exactly. I think that one of the main reasons SOAP could become popular is simply because the big guys are pushig it as a marshaling format. If you take, for instance, the visual studio implementation, it is obvious that a VB programmer does not have to know anything about XML nor SOAP, the task is simply handled transparently by the proxy (i.e. the marshaller) and the stub (i.e. the unmarshaller - if I can say say it with such expression). So, the advantage of SOAP is that it could be made totally invisible. The developers can only be aware of the procedural code interface not the underlying XML based marshalling format used for RPC. Thus, on one side you get procedural code and at the other side procedural code. They simply replaced the CORBA or DCOM communication link with an HTTP based transport and an XML based marshalling format. One thing for sure, you can count on IBM (with Java tools) and Microsoft (with VB or c#) to provide tools based on this new marshalling schema. The others will follow. We have here two different strategy: a) create a SOAP interface from a java class (or bean) - IBM strategy b) create a SOAP interface from a COM object - Microsoft strategy. So, on the one hand, RMI or IIOP is replaced by SAOP and on the other hand, DCOM is replaced by SOAP. The good point now is that finally both camps is using the same marshalling format. So, after all, this is not a bad thing since at least XML, taking the appearance of SOAP, becomes a lingua franca for procedural code marshalling. Yes not so bad after all if these guys finally speak together... cheers Didier PH Martin mailto: martind@n... Book: XML Professional (Wrox) Articles: xml.com Conference: Wireless One (Las Vegas)
|
