Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: A RESTafarian who eschews the use of SOAP
- On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...> wrote:
> Do UPS and SWIFT count as two obvious examples and then the FraudlabsNo they don't count until you provide some evidence to back up your
> piece would be another.
> OTA (Open Travel Alliance) would be another set.
> Admittedly these are just large scale business pieces with large revenues.
assertion that SOAP "works for the job" as you put it. Links to their
actual API documentation would be preferable. All I have now is your
unsubstantiated claim that SOAP is being used. I provided a link to
the GS1 transport stats, so I think it only fair that you provide an
comparable amount of evidence.
What we may find is that all of them use only "empty header" SOAP
envelopes, which would indicate that while they use SOAP in a de
minimis sense, it really doesn't work for the job. Or perhaps we'll
find that they offer REST or POX alternatives as well, which also
would undercut their status as "obvious examples" of working for the
job, since the alternatives work just as well.
What I am really seeking are large enterprises that are truly
leveraging the power of SOAP in ways that provide convincing evidence
that SOAP "works for the job" in ways that other approaches would
struggle. IME very few enterprises really need SOAP for what they are
doing -- it was put either put in by consultants as a checklist item,
or the tool used SOAP by default. The majority of SOAP use appears to
be simply driven by inertia, not any belief in its superiority in
doing the job.
AOL IM: Nicholas Gall
Yahoo IM: nick_gall_1117
MSN IM: (same as email)
Google Talk: (same as email)
Email: nick.gall AT-SIGN gmail DOT com
I've seen your discussion regards to OTA.
Do you have or know where I can find an OTA server example built in .Net?
Where can I find the OTA wsdl to import? With provided OTA stuff I can only find the isolated .xsd files. Isn't there an OTA wsdl to get imported?
Thanks in advance
---In email@example.com, <atmanes@...> wrote:Exactly my point, John. Not everyone agrees with your (and my)
distinction between choreography and orchestration. I'm positing that
the person writing the original article was, in fact, talking about
orchestration rather than choreography.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM, John Evdemon <jevdemon@...> wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2008 at 11:54, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
>> If you define choreography as an executable workflow (a la
>> BPEL), then I think it does
> Minor quibble: BPEL is an orchestration language, not a choreography