On 1/8/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andreas Jung</b> <<a href="mailto:lists@zopyx.com">lists@zopyx.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br>--On 8. Januar 2007 10:42:34 -0330 Rocky Burt <<a href="mailto:rocky@serverzen.com">rocky@serverzen.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 14:54 -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:<br>>> <a href="http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/">
http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/</a><br>>><br>>> I think that an add-on product which provided a SOAP server,<br>>> implementing one of the competing semantics, could be interesting as a
<br>>> starting point, although it might not be terribly resuable.<br>><br>> While I'm not necessarily a huge SOAP advocate (personally I just want<br>> RPC that works) that pasted link does a *very* good job of portraying a
<br>> subjective view on how confusing soap is. That is... it's only<br>> propaganda. Sticking with just SOAP (no wsdl, no uddi, no xml schema)<br>> you can make services as simple as xml-rpc.<br><br>I fully agree with that. SOAP is widely adopted but everything else
<br>on SOAP might be considers as YAGNI.<br><br>><br>> Everything beyond standard soap tries to give it an infinite amount of<br>> power that is best compared to the extremely large number of corba<br>> specifications.
<br><br>This stuff is in some way too overengineered and too complex for being<br>adopted in projects. Specs that are only understandable for the editors are<br>specs for the trashcan.</blockquote><div><br><br>Reading wsdl is pita, but soap support without wsdl support is of no value for me, and I would not be surprised if I there are that many people that do not have to adhere to some complicated wsdl spec.
<br><br>Best regards, <br><br> Patrick<br></div><br></div>