Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5222Re: [decentralization] Re: xml protocols and transport bindings

Expand Messages
  • Paul Prescod
    Feb 2, 2002
      allenjswa wrote:
      >
      >...
      >
      > I think you miss the point -- people *do* interoperate using SOAP
      > over SMTP, *today*. So you say, "what's the use of standards
      > without interop"? And I am just saying, "it is possible to interop
      > without standards, and people are doing it".

      I'd like to hear more. What SOAP+SMTP clients talking to what server?
      Doing what? Using what parts of the SOAP spec?

      > ... Of course it is better
      > to have a standard, and eventually that will happen. But don't
      > say "it will never work" or "the standard is broke" when the fact is
      > that there is no standard for that particular task, and people
      > happen to be accomplishing the task just fine.

      If there is interop then there must be a defacto standard. I've had
      sufficient trouble with simple SOAP over HTTP that I haven't even been
      able ot try it.

      > > point-to-point interops. SOAP has massive interop problems and the
      >
      > This sounds to me like "the sky is falling". I don't see
      > these "massive interop problems" that you talk about.

      I've never been able to find a SOAP client that interoperates
      consistently with more than half of the services at XMethods.

      >...
      > You *do* seem very pessimistic. The thing I find strange, though,
      > is that you seem to be arguing "it'll never work" about things that
      > are already working.

      So you claim. It hasn't been my observation based on a variety of
      clients trying to talk to either XMethods or Microsoft servers.

      >...
      > Yes, but hopefully we will do it one step at a time, rather than
      > expect one spec to cover every layer of the puzzle.

      SOAP already covers way too much.

      > ... SOAP is good
      > for what it does, and the HTTP bindings are good for what they are
      > designed for.

      What does SOAP do? There is part of the problem. Different people have
      different answers. I hear everything from "DCOM for the web" to "just an
      envelope format" from RPC to "fully asychronous." Why would we even try
      to put all of those things into one spec?

      > ...
      > There are many things that a system has to decide when basing
      > interop on async messaging. Things like long-running transaction ID
      > format, dialogue contracts, message flow, etc. SOAP is directly
      > concerned with very little of this -- the rest is done somewhere
      > else, using standards that are less stable (if even proposed) at
      > this point. Even at this layer, things like the biztalk and
      > rosettanet interop events show that the various frameworks *can*
      > interop, using SOAP as a lower layer.

      You can "use SOAP" by including two elements in an XML document
      (envelope, body). I would like to hear more about what interop between
      biztalk and rosettanet using SOAP really means. When I hear about mail
      systems interoperating using SMTP I have a pretty good idea about what
      that means. I don't have that sense with SOAP.

      Paul Prescod
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic