|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: HTTPEctomy considered bad (was RE: RE: MS thinks
Sean McGrath wrote: > > Here is one possible reading of the tea leaves of the HTTPectomy meme. > >... > > 2) SOAP will be transport independent. Doesn't that sound really appealing? > This mantra is already gathering pace. The fact that most developers trust deep > magic to make RPC work over both HTTP and SMTP without > thinking about the fundamentally different transport model of each is testimony > to how powerful that mantra is. You've read my damn mind. Most protocols are transport independent to a point. They say: "this protocol will run over any other protocol with the following characteristics." But the SOAP spec says: "this protocol will run over any othr protocol. Period." This raises the question in my mind of whether it is really a protocol or a file format. Obviously SOAP-RPC is a protocol. But if you adhere to the minimum requirements of SOAP the only guarantee you get is the ability to send an envelope and body into the ether. You aren't guaranteed a response. The mechanism you would use to get a response is undefined outside of HTTP. Well, that sounds a lot like XML or MIME, (i.e. data formats) not like SMTP, HTTP or POP (which are true protocols). The other odd thing is this idea of taking a message on one transport and bridging over to six others. Wasn't that really popular on email until we moved all of the servers into the same address space? Why do we want to bring it back? I'm really asking the question. For email, two protocol hops seems to be sufficient: POP, the pull protocol for the disconnected machine behind the firewall to talk to the "internet" and SMTP the push protocol for once it is on the Internet. Why will web services require more than two (or even one) transport protocol? > 3) Developers will be urged to write to the SOAP "API"s exclusively in order > to insulate their systems from transport dependencies. This will be > marketed as something all conscientious developers should do. "Develop for our platform so you'll be platform independent." >... > It is not that smart people working for the software vendors don't realize > that RPC [expletive deleted]. > They do. But many ordinary developers, short on time or inclination to > think about the > future of the systems they are building, are easily enthralled by the > surface simplicity > of RPC, and are the guys who buy stuff from vendors. Guilty! >... > By the time they are doing that, I fear the world will have forgotten that REST > presented an alternative, and I would argue significantly more powerful, > data-flow based approach to building systems. I have more faith in the industry's ability to come to its senses. I also think that there will be a period where the differences in the two approaches will be stark. Paul Prescod
|
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








