Re: The Revenge of the Geeks

From: Arne Vajh°j <arne_at_vajhoej.dk>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:11:44 -0500
Message-ID: <51049af9$0$293$14726298_at_news.sunsite.dk>


On 1/26/2013 8:47 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> On 01/26/2013 04:47 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 1/26/2013 8:12 AM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2013 12:31 AM, BGB wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
>>
>>>> FWIW: I once messed briefly with XML-RPC, but never really did much
>>>> with
>>>> it since then, although long ago, parts of its design were scavenged
>>>> and
>>>> repurposed for other things (compiler ASTs).
>>>
>>> XML-RPC never really took off. Instead we got SOAP.
>>>
>>
>> I don't really like SOAP...
> [ SNIP ]
>
> I don't know anyone who does, I know I don't. Still, it's what we've
> got. For well-designed operations and schemas it's not that verbose, not
> appreciably worse than JSON. Having WSDLs and the ability to validate is
> useful, although over the years I've come to believe that WSDL-first is
> an abomination unless the project is extremely structured and disciplined.
>
> SOAP is also - still - the only game in town for various security and
> transactional tasks, even if aspects of WS-Security are atrocious. For
> true web services I'd use REST almost always, because SOAP actually
> isn't much to do with the Web at all. But if I need application
> security, encryption of portions of a message, non-repudiation,
> transactionality etc,and I'm really doing RPC, I'm using SOAP.

Standards are rarely optimal.

people are not too happy about HTTP and SMTP either.

But a standard is a standard.

SOAP got the tools support and all the standards that build on top of it.

We can either accept it and live happy with it or invent a time machine and go back to around 1998 and tell a few people from IBM and MS how it should be done.

Arne Received on Sun Jan 27 2013 - 04:11:44 CET

Original text of this message