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

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

Given your comments about your so-called new-found love for HTTP, I
think you are misunderstanding the foundations of SOAP that you call so
into question. SOAP is a rather simple protocol with extensibility at
the core and as Mike points out, HTTP is not tied to HTTP although in
strange ways it has inherited many things from HTTP. There are plenty of
ways that it can be used in non-HTTP scenarios - might want to look at
SOAP-RP [1] and DIME [2] as examples.

Enough about that - if you want to discuss SOAP, I encourage you to do
it on SOAP mailing lists. 

Henrik

[1] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/soap-rp/default.html
[2] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/dime/default.htm

>I wish I had that confidence.  I'm afraid I see SOAP as having 
>overbuilt on rather rickety foundations in the first place, 
>overstressing a protocol that wasn't designed for (or even 
>accidentally suitable for) the kinds of operations SOAP is 
>proposed to handle.
>
>While I'm happy to see that public input and implementation 
>experience is having a substantial impact on the surface 
>characteristics of SOAP, I can't help but wonder why its 
>underlying premises have been so rarely challenged.  
>
>The IETF has a draft[1], but I'm not sure it's made it to Best 
>Current Practices. (Last call went out 17 October 2000, so it 
>may have been
>dropped.)  The more I've thought about this issue, the more I 
>think Keith Moore is right.  XML-RPC is as far as I'm willing 
>to push HTTP, and that may be reasonably considered to be too far.