Re: So what do SOAP and XML-RPC buy you? (was Re: Massive Cross-Post:The State of XML-RPC, April 2001)

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:22:44PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, XML Everywhere wrote:
> > > If you have XML messaging over http, why do you need anything
> > > else?

> > Though the final schedule isn't out yet, this is exactly the talk
> > I'm giving for O'Reilly's Open Source conference (albeit actually
> > in the mod_perl track). HTTP is a great applications protocol - it
> > handles errors, parameter passing, multiple result sets (via
> > MIME), return type negotiation, etc. I hope to open people's minds
> > to other possibilities (though I don't expect many attendees!).

> I'm interested in what the perceived buy is from the XML protocols
> over straight XML+HTTP.  My suspicion is that the main two reasons
> are the lack of perception of HTTP in this light, and the lack of
> friendly enough APIs (esp. on Microsoft platforms) to enable HTTP to
> be used between applications.

One thing that XML-RPC or SOAP buy you (today) over straight XML+HTTP
is automatic marshalling.

Specifically, what is missing is that you can't do:

  http.put(url, anyObject)

and have 'anyObject' marshalled and serialized to XML automatically by
the library, and then sent over HTTP.

  -- Ken

ObDisclaimers: 1) of course the library or user would need to know a)
that it can serialize anyObject, and b) that the url accepts that
serialization, and 2) this is just one category of interaction via
XML+HTTP, and is not meant to cover the far broader spectrum of
possible XML over HTTP interactions.  I'm simply pointing out what
the perceived buy is to XML protocols.