Message text written by "Nieman, Scott"
>
Finally, I too am not a big SOAP fan (as it is currently written) since it
is too tight a binding to the operation itself, and promotes the concept of
"bridges" - which software vendors seem to like in order to sustain their
business. Lose all the arrays, and other argument "types", and treat the
XML document as a string for each operation argument, and then the spec is
philosophically "right-on". Leave the operation implementation up to
others; i.e., let me determine whether I parse it with the DOM, SAX, or
custom, and call my RPC, ActiveX, or CORBA interfaces. Operation
invocation
should be the only goal with the specification, and it should be a simple
specification at that.
Regards,
Scott
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well now you've said it! I was being more polite - but yes - right on
here!
SOAP is a step in the right? direction in terms of Schemas though? The
scrary thing here is it opens up a Pandora's Box - where the Schema is
not a schema but a re-map of W3C schema as a schema dialect that
thereby removes or obscures the original syntax from the end user,
if you follow the thought process.
Sort of 'roll your own schema' toolkit.
Fun.
DW.
