[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Joshua Allen wrote:
>
>...
>
> The basic answer is that it allows out-of-box interop (well, usually) so
> things like VS.NET can work with BEA, and BEA can work with Apache, and
> so on. This doesn't negate the value of loose-coupling -- it is still
> beneficial to do loose-coupled async architectures even if the
> message/document format is not SOAP.
Is this true? Can I take a WSDL for an asynchronous application, pump it
through Visual Studio.NET and ask for an asynchronous binding (whether
JMS or SMTP or response-less HTTP) and then expect it to work out of the
box with BEA or Apache's toolkit? And if so, based upon what draft or
completed standards?
> .... But the fact that 90% of clients
> and servers support automatic SOAP mappings mean that SOAP is a safe bet
> for an XML novice trying to whip up a loosely coupled architecture in a
> hurry.
As clients move to *XML Schema* mappings, the SOAP mappings will become
less and less interesting. Already, Microsoft's GET and POST bindings
demonstrate that you can get *exactly the same* XML type mappings
without using SOAP. And if you aren't interested in pre-declared types,
XML-RPC is more reliably interoperable in my experience than SOAP.
Paul Prescod
|
