RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learned toLove daBomb)

[Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>]

I bet people on <mailto:xml-dist-app@w3.org> 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:soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>,
which roughly represent 40+ implementations or so would like to hear
what they are doing all wrong with respect to interoperability.

Henrik

>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.)