5220Re: [decentralization] Re: xml protocols and transport bindings
- Feb 1, 2002allenjswa wrote:
>Nothing is impossible if you work together. IP packets over carrier
> > RPC over HTTP is the only variant of SOAP that is fully specified
> > and can thus be implemented in an interoperable fashion.
> There are plenty of people using SOAP 1.1 to interoperate over
> MSMQ/MQ-Series messaging. So, while you are technically correct in
> saying that MQ bindings are not formally specified, I hope you are
> not implying that binding SOAP 1.1 RPC to async message queues is
pigeons! I'm asking whether two different developers, without
communication will make SOAP over MSMQ/MQSeries bindings that are 100%
compatible, using the relevant specs.
> I have also seen people successfully bind SOAP to SMTP, again notWhat's the use of standards that don't inteoperate?
> specified and not guaranteed to interoperate with anyone else who
> makes up SMTP bindings, but it works just fine for what it's used
> I believe that some of the 81 SOAP implementations listed atThat's exactly my point. It's a big problem when you have to work out
> http://www.soapware.org/directory/4/implementations have "out of the
> box" SMTP bindings. However, I would also point out that even the
> existence of an HTTP binding spec is not a guarantee that these
> implementations interop. Even when people implement to the spec,
> ensuring interop takes a lot of cooperation on the part of the
> implementers: http://www.whitemesa.com/interop.htm
point-to-point interops. SOAP has massive interop problems and the only
reason you use a standard is to avoid those! Despite all of the known
bugs in web servers and POP servers I don't remember ever having a
problem doing a GET from any programming language to any web site or
pointing any email client at whatever POP server my employers happened
to have installed. Optimistically, SOAP is two years away from that
level of interop on HTTP. (after all the spec isn't even done yet!)
Pessimistically it will take much, much longer because of all of the
optional features. And then we have to talk about using it on other
transports...and in different message patterns....
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>