[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > 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?
So you're saying that SOAP+WSDL is an application protocol? I don't
think so.
SOAP+WSDL+a particular WSDL definition+prose descriptions of the
semantics: THEN you have an application protocol.
But...you can also get to an application protocol without either SOAP or
WSDL. After all, this is how all of the successful ones are already
defined: HTTP, SMTP, FTP, ...
So I 100% agree with your statement: "It's great to standardize app
protocols" but I think that we've been doing that for several decades
already! The way I see people using SOAP/WSDL is exactly the
*opposite* of standardizing application protocols. Rather, everyone
invents their own application protocol. SOAP/WSDL makes that easy. You
could argue that that's a good thing but it has nothing to do with
"standardizing application protocols."
I think we would be much farther ahead towards seamless ebusiness if we
had spent the last two years standardizing app protocols!
Paul Prescod
|
