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

5225Re: xml protocols and transport bindings

Expand Messages
  • allenjswa
    Feb 2, 2002
      > If there is interop then there must be a defacto standard. I've had

      Huh? That is about as accurate as your earlier statement
      about "synchronous" and "rpc" being synonomous (which is to say, not
      at all).

      > sufficient trouble with simple SOAP over HTTP that I haven't even
      > able ot try it.

      What have you had trouble with? I have never *not* had SOAP work
      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 people
      > 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?

      You already have the answer. It's a message format that can be used
      (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
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic