Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: mark hu <email@example.com>
- To: Dave Winer <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:12:11 -0400
I agree with Dave - first of all, I do think the project size could do
affects about the decision you ganna make - e.g. developeing COM object in
VB or VC++ for a guy who's efficient on both means the same ease thing, but
in the real world maybe u need to make up you mind and maybe the business
you are working with prefer one than another besides the performance
issues - and back to SOAP and XML-RPC, my little point of view is that SOAP
is trying to simplify the XML world and come up a more light weight
protocol, and surely it'll take some time to finalize everything. About the
interoperability, SOAP is compatible with simplified XML types, and still
support XML, so I can not see anything wrong about SOAP interoperability
with XML and anything else, by saying Rope - are u talking about the Proxy
Engine or the real one ? Even the Proxy Engine, you have your own option -
not using MS COM based ROPE and build up your own - JAVA/CORBA based, or
whatever u like to, and back to the staring point of SOAP - it's designed to
simplify cross Platform Object Reference and Invokes, make the data exchange
world simple and clean, correct me if I am wrong - again, I think SOAP is
just a messaging protocol, use it or not and how to use it depends on us,
"Make Your Life More Enjoyable"
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Winer <email@example.com>
To: Simon St.Laurent <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: XML-RPC or SOAP
> What does the size of a project have to do with it?
> How do you measure the size of a project?
> Further, the complexities (or lack of) in any protocol are completely
> behind APIs. I do SOAP and XML-RPC with equal ease. The only issue is what
> they interoperate with. (And perhaps performance, but I doubt if there's
> difference between the two encodings.)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 9:22 AM
> Subject: Re: XML-RPC or SOAP
> > At 09:03 AM 8/4/00 -0700, Dave Winer wrote:
> > >XML-RPC is alive and well.
> > >
> > >SOAP is coming along, but there aren't many interoperable
> > >and none of them implement all the possibilities. So interoperability
> > >still a challenge in SOAP-space, where it's trivial in XML-RPC, and
> > >and demonstrated.
> > >
> > >So my advice is this, if XML-RPC does what you need to do, use it.
> > For once, I'll agree with Dave 100%.
> > SOAP may be more 'advanced', but XML-RPC is very convenient and easy to
> > learn. For small projects, and maybe even for some relatively simple
> > projects, XML-RPC makes a lot of sense.
> > (I like to say that XML-RPC gives you enough rope to hang yourself, but
> > SOAP gives you enough rope to hang yourself and a lot of other people
> > Rope is, of course, useful for other things as well!)
> > Simon St.Laurent
> > XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
> > http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books