On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 15:47, Peter Corlett <ab...@cabal.org.uk> wrote: > On 27 Apr 2010, at 14:32, James Laver wrote: > [...] >> It's telling that at a large FTSE 250 we were hand constructing the xml >> (with string concatenation, no less) to get around the shitty libraries >> problem. > > Funnily enough, that's what *I* had to resort to when dealing with SOAP at a > FTSE250 company too. > > Have you looked at the source of Perl's SOAP::Lite? It's definitely an > experience. At least the POD and comments are quick and easy to read, given > how few there are. It should be renamed SOAP::Shite. > > This could almost be a hate on Perl, but other languages' SOAP > implementations don't seem to be any better.
What did the "S" in "SOAP" stand for again? I keep forgetting. Nothing comes to mind, really. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.new...@gmail.com>
