Now on a proper keyboard instead of an iPhone in a bar! The thing that *really* gets me is when people use SOAP to throw XML strings around, instead of, say, a get over HTTPS with simple authentication. Seems to be mostly folk that do .Net. Drives me nuts because it's such a waste of resources and time. (encoding the encoding of something encoded and then reversing it when it gets back - argh!). Plus you need to be given the schema of the document as well as the WSDL, two things to get wrong and have to test instead of one.
I like SOAP when you're sending complex objects that you can populate and interrogate because it feels simple to do, but it's a PITA when the interface is in a state of flux and then raw XML makes more sense. Horses for courses I suppose. Thanks and regards, Francis Follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/fjfish Blog at http://www.francisfish.com (you can also buy my books from there!) Skype: fjfish On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Ciaran <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Francis Fish <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Last time I looked at summat like this twas a login object you had to >> instatiate & populate 1st in order to pass through. This shuld be in >> the default.rb. >> >> SOAP is designed to move complex objects about so parameters tend to >> be objects in their own right. > > The irony of an acronym that *was* 'simple object access protocol' being > used for complex objects never ceases to ecape me ;) ... FWIW though it > depends entirely on the *type* of web service being called whether not it > its complex objects or sets of objects, i.e. whether its rpc-literal, > rpc-literal-encoded or document-literal, or document-literal wrapped etc ;) > >> >> >> Ruby -d willl populate the $DEBUG global and give you what Ruby's >> sending down the wire. Never needed the proxies or that stuff & I must >> have written 10 or so clients in my last job. > > Ahh I'd forgotten -d yes that would be a lot simpler than the proxy'ing > approach, I'd still recommend first checking you can get things working with > SoapUI first, will *generally* save you a lot of time in the long run :) > - cj. > > >> >> >> F >> >> On Tuesday, July 28, 2009, Ciaran <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Ok, cool. SoapUI is awesome.... If the element in the 'example request' >> follows <!--- optional --> then it doesn't need to be supplied, otherwise it >> does (this is all predicated on the assumption that the wsdl being exposed >> is actually correct..which they often aren't :( ) >> > - cj. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:05 AM, doug livesey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Ah, I'm with you, cheers -- and from playing a little with soapUI, it >> looks well useful, and even seems to suggest that there are parameters I >> need to be passing that are not in the published API -- for instance, the >> API talks about login( username, password ), whereas the xml snippet that >> soapUI reveals for login has question marks for username, password, company >> id, etc. >> > So I guess I'll experiment with the driver created, passing different >> params & inspecting the results until I'm happy that I'm passing the params >> the right way (arrays, whatever, etc.). >> > & cheers again for your help, >> > >> > Doug. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> -- >> Thanks and regards, >> >> Francis Fish >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
