ASP Error: 70
Description: Permission denied
Source: Microsoft VBScript runtime error
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Can you stand yet another SOAP-RPC vs HTTP GET question?
I believe the in-between the lines answer to your question is "SOAP is more buzzword compliant than an HTTP GET of XML content" -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Your successes will happen in private and your failures in full view of everyone. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:08 PM > To: xml-dev > Subject: Can you stand yet another SOAP-RPC vs HTTP > GET question? > > > > > I asked the Google Web API people why they didn't just offer > a simple HTTP GET of an XML > result. The (FAQ, I think) response was: "We chose to > deliver Google Web APIs via SOAP > because we believe that the SOAP developer tools make Google > Web APIs accessible to a broad > developer community." OK, fair enough ... if we were talking > about some complicated > interface. But we're talking about generating very simple > URIs for 99% of what people do with > Google. > > > For example, one question I ponder frequently "is the world > run by knaves or fools" is simple > to pose to the Google URI interface: > http://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+world+run+by+knaves+or+f > ools All I want is the option > to get the result in XML > http://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+world+run+by+knaves+or+f ools&r=xml Every language I use has a URL library and a string manipulation library, and it would be easy to take an arbitrary query string, generate such a URI, do a GET on it, and parse the XML response. Wrap up this logic in a simple API! How much broader a developer community could they want?. One could easily add some options such as quoting the whole phrase, or whatever. Granted, this only scratches the surface of what the Google API can do, but then again 99% of the user's won't do anything more sophisticated (IMHO, anyway). A general URI interface would be at least as complex as the SOAP API, but that would be pointless -- SOAP RPC is good for representing arbitrary, complex argument lists, and few would object to having that as an option. I just resent having the complex, general solution forced on me (assuming I want to access Google from a program) for simple everyday things. So, what am I missing here? I feel like I've gone senile or something. [Back in mah day, Sonny, we had to concatenate strings by hand to build URIs, we didn't have no fancy GUI's to generate WSDL to input to a binder to generate SOAP messages like you young whippersnappers are usin'] Do most people in the "broad developer community REALLY want to jump through hoops to avoid having to think about URIs? Or is this example (involving all strings rather than a mix of strings and integers and structures) just so much more trivial than the "typical" SOAP- RPC problem that it's not worth thinking about? ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
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








