Re: What does SOAP really add?
Joshua Allen wrote: > >... > > The basic answer is that it allows out-of-box interop (well, usually) so > things like VS.NET can work with BEA, and BEA can work with Apache, and > so on. This doesn't negate the value of loose-coupling -- it is still > beneficial to do loose-coupled async architectures even if the > message/document format is not SOAP. Is this true? Can I take a WSDL for an asynchronous application, pump it through Visual Studio.NET and ask for an asynchronous binding (whether JMS or SMTP or response-less HTTP) and then expect it to work out of the box with BEA or Apache's toolkit? And if so, based upon what draft or completed standards? > .... But the fact that 90% of clients > and servers support automatic SOAP mappings mean that SOAP is a safe bet > for an XML novice trying to whip up a loosely coupled architecture in a > hurry. As clients move to *XML Schema* mappings, the SOAP mappings will become less and less interesting. Already, Microsoft's GET and POST bindings demonstrate that you can get *exactly the same* XML type mappings without using SOAP. And if you aren't interested in pre-declared types, XML-RPC is more reliably interoperable in my experience than SOAP. 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