[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: lots of WS reading material
4/25/2002 4:23:08 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: > REST requires discipline. SOAP requires >a toolkit. How do you think a VB programmer will vote? That is an EXTREMELY good point (not to mention one of Len's trademark nice turns of phrase). Joel Sapolsky has the most interesting pro-SOAP commentary that I've seen yet, and he makes it clear that It's the Visual GUI, Stupid. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20020425.html "The claim that SOAP is bad because the wire format is ugly and hard is like claiming nobody should use Pentiums because their instruction sets are so much more complicated than the instruction set for the 8086. Yeah, it's true, but we have compilers that take care of that..." If this really is all there is to the SOAP vs REST issue, Sapolsky (and Winer, et al.) are right. But "ugliness" isn't what Baker, Prescod, et al. are "grumping" about, it's reliability, scalability, distributability, etc. He seems to miss the argument that all that convenience only actually works if everyone buys new routers, firewalls, caches, etc. to make it work ... and there is no compelling proof that all this new stuff can be designed, built, and deployed in an economically feasible manner by real companies. REST's foundation argument is that you don't need a leap of faith or a new SOAP Infrastructure Bubble to believe that REST works, since the Web is the proof. [Also, I'm out of my depth here, but the Pentium example is actually an argument for elegance in design; isn't the complicated x86 hardware being emulated on a RISC chip in a modern Pentium? ] > >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. That's exactly the issue. SOAP-RPC advocates (or at least the pundits and columnists) imply that SOAP-RPC will be able to leverage the Web infrastructure (HTTP servers, firewalls, etc.). The REST people are saying "not so fast", you're really creating new, fragmented webs of SOAP endpoints / WSDL ports / whatever rather than the Web of URIs that brought us where we are today. This *may* work better someday (see Don Box's arguments about preferring SOAP-aware caches and routers), but it's about where the Web was in 1992. >XML Doesn't Care about URIs or REST. That's >why it will be the survivor. Now is when >I'm glad markup won the bracket wars. When the >swords turn back into plowshares, it will still >be here. Don't be so sure. SOAP doesn't care about angle brackets; 1.2 is based on the InfoSet. Just as the WS-* vision abstracts away HTTP and URIs so that they can be replaced with something new and better, it abstracts away XML syntax, and could replace it with a binary format, C# object declaration syntax, or anything else that can be parsed into an InfoSet. XML as we know it may find itself in the Dumpster along with HTTP and URIs before long ... Maybe this is just my paranoia, nevertheless Machiavelli looks like a bumbling amateur compared to some of the people who are thinking long and hard about using WS-* to re-write the rules of the Internet game.
|
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
|