5225Re: xml protocols and transport bindings
- Feb 2, 2002
> If there is interop then there must be a defacto standard. I've hadHuh? That is about as accurate as your earlier statement
about "synchronous" and "rpc" being synonomous (which is to say, not
> sufficient trouble with simple SOAP over HTTP that I haven't evenWhat have you had trouble with? I have never *not* had SOAP work
> able ot try it.
when I tried to call various methods at XMethods or web services I
develop myself. I've used pocketsoap, radio userland, soap toolkit,
and .net at verious times. If you find it difficult, you could try
out the WSDL browser at www.gotdotnet.com; just give it the WSDL for
one of the services listed at xmethods or elsewhere and browse to
the function you want to call. It will do everything for you; no
coding required. It generates the code you can cut and paste and
use from script such as within Excel or Word, also. This works just
fine for me. I will admit that I have not exhaustively tried to
test every client and server against every web service, and I fully
expect that there exist some interop bugs in certain combinations
and on certain services. That is why people do interop work.
> What does SOAP do? There is part of the problem. Different peopleYou already have the answer. It's a message format that can be used
> different answers. I hear everything from "DCOM for the web"
> envelope format" from RPC to "fully asychronous." Why would we
> to put all of those things into one spec?
(and is used) in things like "dcom for the web" and "asynchronous
rpc". You can confuse yourself if you want, but it is not that
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>