[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Brennan wrote:
>
>...
> That's what I meant by "SOAP-like". I was speaking in terms of some
> high-level patterns. I see some common characteristics between the
> approaches I've seen adopted and SOAP, and they all seem to share most of
> the same issues in terms of conflict with REST.
Sure, before I learned about REST I did the exact same thing.
But completely orthogonal to that issue is the question of the technical
quality of the SOAP spec itself. SOAP has gradually shifted over the
years from being a horse (DCOM for the Web) to being a shark ("generic,
transport-protocol-neutral messaging") and I think that today's result
looks like any other project that shifts focus too quickly for the
technical architecture to keep up. Floor wax and dessert topping. I can
imagine a person being insanely impressed with the simplicity of XML-RPC
or the sophistication of CORBA but SOAP seems like a horse designed by
committee. I've only met one person who really knew SOAP inside out and
who believed that the design was good and could defend it strongly (on
its own terms, not in competition with REST). I still disagreed with him
but it was nice to get the other point of view!
Paul Prescod
|
