xml-dev - Re: XML over HTTP: SOAP and ...?

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

It's a familiar argument. I remember people saying they wouldn't use C,
because they could do everything in assembler that they could do in C.

But when I find myself writing the same code over and over, I always wish it
could be simpler, so then I implement another layer, and voila it gets
simpler.

Then I can use my brain to make it complex again.

Dave

PS: This list has not been working too well. I wrote an essay yesterday
about being "anti-Microsoft" but I don't think anyone saw it. Oh well. I
guess I'm branded for life! It's a Microsoft conspiracy. (Not.)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Haustein" <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
To: <xml-dev@xml.org>
Cc: "David Megginson" <david@megginson.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: XML over HTTP: SOAP and ...?


> David Megginson wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and that's how a lot of people do it.  The potential advantage of
> > an RPC layer is that it gives a standard way to invoke specific
> > services on either side, so it's possible to write generic, reusable
> > higher-level libraries; for example, you could call x =
y.getSomething();
> > and not know (or have to know) whether y.getSomething() was a method
> > on a local object or an HTTP transaction.
>
> At least, with SOAP you have the choice:
> You can use transparent RPC or do everything
> "by hand" like you would do using direct socket
> connections. Especially if you don't like
> transparent access to remote procedures and prefer
> direct socket connections, dealing with SOAP seems
> much simpler than decoding/encoding binary formats
> like IIOP or similar "by hand". So the
> offer is not just another RPC mechanism but
> the pontential to bring both worlds together.
>
> For example, I wouldn't expect to get
> IIOP on my palm pilot, but a nice little
> XML (CXML) parser, why not? And why should
> I wait for SyncML or RDF extensions if
> I can communicate with (e.g.) Outlook using
> SOAP?
>
> In my opinion, one of the most interesting
> things SOAP offers is a standard way
> to serialize higer level data structures
> (much more pragmatically than RDF). W3 and
> OMG failed in provide anything really useable
> so far. However, I would still prefer
> XML-RPC + a nice object serilization
> format over SOAP just because I do not want
> to depend on MS (Just look at RTF)...
>
> Best regards
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stefan Haustein
> University of Dortmund
> Computer Science VIII
> www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de
>
>
***************************************************************************
> This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
> To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
> List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
***************************************************************************


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************