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

RE: [soapbuilders] multiple immediate children in doc/literal?

Expand Messages
  • Rosimildo daSIlva
    ... Outch ! That hurts. Sorry everybody, for my fustrastion. It has been a long day ! Rosimildo. __________________________________________________ Do You
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- graham glass <graham@...> wrote:
      > hi rosimildo,
      >
      > if you think the SOAP 1.2 specification is large,
      > you should check out
      > the 500 page UDDI 3.0 specification!
      >

      Outch ! That hurts.

      Sorry everybody, for my fustrastion. It has been
      a long day !

      Rosimildo.

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
      http://health.yahoo.com
    • Matt Long
      ... I have to disagree with you both; you re both right! Thx, -Matt Long Phalanx Systems, LLC
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 3 9:24 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert van Engelen wrote:

        > I disagree with Rich' opinion that comp. sci. theorists are to blame
        > (no offense, Rich ;-) ). I suspect that too many parties attempt to be
        > stakeholders in SOAP 1.2 to tweak it to be as widely applicable as
        > possible in order to claim IP rights for anything that uses XML over
        > HTTP/SMTP/TCP (I am not even sure anymore whether SOAP 1.2. requires
        > XML at all which used to be main advantage that SOAP had over other
        > protocols by utilizing XML as the lingua franca for RPC).

        I have to disagree with you both; you're both right!


        Thx,

        -Matt Long
        Phalanx Systems, LLC
      • Robert van Engelen
        ... Here is my two cents worth of unsollicited opinion (read: rant). It is certainly ironic that the bloat has crept into protocols such as UDDI 3.0 and SOAP
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 3 9:26 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          graham glass wrote:
          >
          > hi rosimildo,
          >
          > if you think the SOAP 1.2 specification is large, you should check out
          > the 500 page UDDI 3.0 specification!

          Here is my two cents worth of unsollicited opinion (read: rant).

          It is certainly ironic that the bloat has crept into protocols such
          as UDDI 3.0 and SOAP 1.2, while the original goal of these protocols
          was "lightweight" RPC and/or message exchange with lookup/discovery.

          On the one hand the usage context of SOAP 1.2 is greatly enlarged,
          while on the other hand SOAP 1.2 RPC's Section 5 encoding has been
          simplified in such a way that it breaks compatibility with SOAP 1.1 RPC
          encoding. I get the feeling that RPC encoding will be on its way out.
          As a result, SOAP's usefulness for language/platform interoperability
          will be diminished.

          Certainly, SOAP 1.1 promised to be a viable alternative to ORB systems
          because of its lightweight properties that allowed small-scale systems
          such as cellphones and embedded systems to use it rather than existing
          heavyweight ORB architectures. I am not sure if SOAP 1.2 will be able
          to fulfill this promise.

          I disagree with Rich' opinion that comp. sci. theorists are to blame
          (no offense, Rich ;-) ). I suspect that too many parties attempt to be
          stakeholders in SOAP 1.2 to tweak it to be as widely applicable as
          possible in order to claim IP rights for anything that uses XML over
          HTTP/SMTP/TCP (I am not even sure anymore whether SOAP 1.2. requires
          XML at all which used to be main advantage that SOAP had over other
          protocols by utilizing XML as the lingua franca for RPC).

          - Robert van Engelen, Computer Science Dept., FSU.
        • Rich Salz
          ... Hey, did you see that UDDI just turned spec development over to OASIS? That s interesting.
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 6 5:51 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            > It is certainly ironic that the bloat has crept into protocols such
            > as UDDI 3.0 and SOAP 1.2, while the original goal of these protocols
            > was "lightweight" RPC and/or message exchange with lookup/discovery.

            Hey, did you see that UDDI just turned spec development over to OASIS?

            That's interesting.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.