[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 12:35, Mike Deem wrote:
> > I think you have a very strange notion of what XML is.
>
> When constructing a message, if I should not have to choose between
> building an XML document and encoding the same information in an URL
> with query string parameters. I should be able to do the same thing all
> the time for every message.
I don't see why that's at all necessary. If, as so many SOAP people keep
insisting, the message format doesn't matter to programmers, you're just
throwing out another red herring. For a lot of systems, your supposed
benefit is a crippling disadvantage - it's far easier to include query
string parameters in a URL than generate XML POST requests.
If we're talking about development by people who are already familiar
with the Web, we're not exactly asking them to study astrophysics in
order to figure this out.
If you want an approach that uses the same encoding for all requests, I
strongly suggest that you look someplace other than HTTP. Microsoft
seems to be headed in that direction anyway.
> OK. First, we should be clear about exactly what is being compared here.
> Are we comparing SOAP to the ad-hock sending XML messages? Are we
> comparing SOAP to DCOM, CORBA, or other RPC protocols? Are we comparing
> SOAP to a more RESTful methodology?
From my perspective, we're comparing SOAP to ad hoc XML, likely in a
RESTful context - "SGML for the Web", remember? DCOM, CORBA, and RPC
don't seem to add much value to the conversation.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
