Re: lots of WS reading material
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > > Because it isn't just Microsoft. That is the kind > of argument that steers this away from a technical > discussion into a bar room brawl. If it were just > Microsoft, that would be an issue given their > installation ubiquity, but it isn't. There are > what, a hundred, WSI-O members? That is a lot > of ubiks. 100 people can run in the wrong way and I still won't follow them. >... > > Don't turn off your brains. Turn them on long > enough to admit that SOAP and REST are two > different architectures, two different information > ecosystems nesting in the same medium: the Internet. I think it is incorrect to say that SOAP is an architecture. SOAP is a syntax that can be adapted to a variety of architectures. The interoperable variant of SOAP uses an RPC architecture and even most backers of SOAP agree that this is not where it will end up. They haven't articulated where it will end up but they are clear that it is not RPC. Nevertheless, I have trouble understanding how your article relates to any of the following documents: a) my original Google article, b) Dave's rebuttal, c) my counter. If you've reviewed all three articles do you agree or disagree that 1) there are substantive technical issues raised 2) Google could have chosen a better technology for their API and 3) they should now correct their mistake by *at the least* adding a URI-based mechanism for retrieving query results? 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