10236Re: [soapbuilders] Re: origin of interoperability problems?
- May 9 8:08 AMBingo! Give that man a ceeegar.
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
phone: +1 508 377 9295
email@example.com wrote on 05/09/2005 10:47:11 AM:
> >I didn't say that it would be hard. Just not practical. The world isimplementation and
> >not pure java... there's still a gazillion lines of COBOL running
> >(even some that I wrote back in the stone ages:-). What's a hashmap
> >to COBOL?
> While I also think defining hashmaps compatibly across languages is
> difficult (does CORBA do it?), I think this discussion is missing the
> real difficulty of interoperability. It's not that it's hard to pass
> hash tables from Java to COBOL. It's that it's still hard to pass
> integers from Java to .NET. Or arrays of structures from Java to Perl.
> The more I get into trying to build interoperable web services, the
> more I think the whole XML->native type binding approach is just
> fundamentally broken. I can't see any theoretical reason it shouldn't
> work, but the practical outcome is so bad it makes me think something
> must be wrong with the idea.
> People say the best way to build interoperable web services is focus
> on the XML documents. I'm increasingly thinking that's the only way to
> do things. Alas, what that means in most languages is you treat your
> SOAP packets like XML documents and slog through them with DOM or the
> like. I fear that in many languages you're better off without the
> fancy SOAP/WSDL toolkits entirely.
> If we're reduced to parsing XML documents, all SOAP+WSDL has
> accomplished is the soap:Header tag. That's not so exciting.
> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
> interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>