5228Re: [decentralization] Re: xml protocols and transport bindings
- Feb 3, 2002Paul Prescod wrote:
> what using SOAP means will vary radically from project to project.I'm afraid that that's the norm. I don't see what it buys you - two
> Some people will mean that they figure out a way to shoe-horn their
> data into a SOAP envelope. Big deal.
unrelated protocols based on XML are no more compatible than two unrelated
protocols based on binary.
> I claim that this is a terminological mess that is going to cause bigThe purpose of buzzwords is *not* communication.
As I see it, there are several things involved here -
encoding - XML is, face it, a crappy encoding scheme. Just *what* are you
supposed to do with tags you don't recognize? Strip them out? Ignore
everything in the middle? It doesn't even parse all that fast, produces
bloated encodings, and doesn't even do good binary encoding. And for
what? A little human-editability? In a format spoken between computer
programs? Who cares?
type checking conventions - supposedly DTDs sort of, kind of can do this,
but it seems everyone just writes regular expressions.
transport format - could someone explain to me what's wrong with length
RPC - this is, face it, 20 year old technology. Why everyone in the
universe reinvents RPC and thinks it's the greatest thing ever is beyond
me. This whole approach's applicability to net applications is seriously
in doubt, with the many disasters which have come from multithreaded apps
with blocking network calls.
For my own application, I've created my own altogether more reasonable
version of all of these things, and even working as a single developer
it's *saved* time. SOAP and the like may be acceptable technologies, but
they certainly aren't good.
"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
-- John Maynard Keynes
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>