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

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

Expand Messages
  • Matt Long
    ... I have to disagree with you both; you re both right! Thx, -Matt Long Phalanx Systems, LLC
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 3, 2002
      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
    • Rich Salz
      ... Hey, did you see that UDDI just turned spec development over to OASIS? That s interesting.
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 6, 2002
        > 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.