[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> protocol. That's why I'm surprised you say that SOAP/WSDL/... services
> are a good idea because "It's great to have common data syntax,
> networking protocols, why not app protocols?" I don't understand what
> this has to do with SOAP. SOAP is not an app protocol.
That's why I deliberately included WSDL, nu?
> Okay, here's a SOAP message, please tell me what SOAP says it means:
...
> If you give me an HTTP or DNS or for that matter IP message, I think
> that I will be able to tell you much more about what it means according
> to the HTTP, or DNS or IP specs than you will be able to tell me about
> the message above
Of course you will because you have an external schema -- the specs --
that defines syntax and semantics. Trying to decode IP traffic without
the RFCs is the same as decoding SOAP messages without their data
definition. Play fair. :)
> Of course. They are experiencing success! The perfect time to switch
> strategies. ;)
Unh no. They want the header extensibility and message routing, etc.,
made possible by the SOAP framework.
/r$
|
