[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learned toLove daBomb)
- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:53:21 -0700
I bet people on <mailto:email@example.com> would *love* to hear more
details about your concerns about building a modular infrastructure and
how you see the problems relate to messaging in general.
I would also bet that people on <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>,
which roughly represent 40+ implementations or so would like to hear
what they are doing all wrong with respect to interoperability.
>SOAP on the other hand seems to be maturing toward greater
>potential for disaster. It promises to do far more difficult
>things than XML-RPC, while using the same infrastructure. Its
>"envelope" approach adds extra layers to messaging which both
>open enormous possibilities and weigh down those possibilities
>with extra overhead.
>The continuing march of acronyms in the SOAP world suggests
>that we aren't nearly finished yet, and interoperability looks
>likely to remain a substantial issue for a long time going
>forward. I don't find it possible at this time to recommend
>SOAP or its accompanying technologies except to people who
>already are locked into them, typically because they need to
>communicate with someone else who has already adopted SOAP.
>(Because some people genuinely need to use SOAP thanks to such
>network effects, I do my best to keep up on SOAP and encourage
>others to do so as well, while acknowledging the defensive
>nature of such work.)