[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

• To: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:18:54 -0700
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0206110005140.23948-100000@e...>

Rich Salz wrote:
> 
> > And the advantage of using "Web Services" for these applications, over
> > existing technologies like CORBA, DCOM or MQSeries, is what?
> 
> Avoid purchase of third-party infrastructure.  It's great to have common
> data syntax, networking protocols, why not app protocols? 

But SOAP isn't an app protocol. Agreeing to use SOAP is the networking
equivalent of "agreeing to use XML" or "agreeing to use Unicode" only it
actually implies far less practical interoperability than either of
those statements...

>...
> Fidelity [1] expects to eventually toss 3/4 of their current IT
> middleware, both software and servers.
[1] http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead080601.htm

It's interesting that they are experiencing such success with only XML
and DTDs, not SOAP, WSDL and XML Schema. But as the article says:

"What they've done will take the mainstream five years to do and the
conservative companies 10 years," says Gartner Group analyst Roy
Schulte.

I guess Fidelity focused on their business problems rather than adopting
the technologies de jure!

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Data binding as type definition
• Next by Date: [off-topic] For-pay APIs
• Previous by thread: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by thread: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread