On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 10:34, Steve Jones wrote: > On 11/12/06, Stuart Charlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've worked with both kinds of toolsets (HTTP+XML and SOAP/WS) and I > > don't see a material difference, except that WSDL generates an RPC > > style interface typically... > > Which is easier for the 80%+ of developer out there. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, it just means that that's what most people out there understand. Compare the stats of procedural vs. OO knowledge at various points in industy history. > > > > > > 3. One uses an HTTP stack to access the URIs. > > > > > > Manual step v automatic > > > > Again, I'm completely at a loss as to how this is any more manual than > > invoking an operation on a SOAP web service. > > In one I'm coding in Java/C# to make the call on another object > (automatic) and its parsing all the XML for me (automatic), in the > other I'm calling a port (manual) and doing the XML work myself > (manual). > > Now for some developers the later could be quicker, but for the > majority the former will be much simpler. But then why not do it in CORBA or any other previous technology? If you have automatic code generation and automatic data binding, then you have defeated the flexibility offered by XML messaging in the first place. You might as well use byte offsets--they'd be more efficient. I'm not saying that your system won't work. We've lots of proof that it does, but I don't believe that it will be as flexible or easily evolved over time--especially if you don't treat XML as anything other than a verbose data encoding format. ast -- Andrew S. Townley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://atownley.org
