> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> >
> > Did you get anyone defending SOAP on its technical merits?
>
> Technical merits?
>
> Not really. There were quite a few who technically bashed it in response
> to Joel's article though:
>
> * http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp
>
> > You and Mark Baker seem to present more technical defense than any of
> > the "advocates", which has me thoroughly confused.
> >
> > (Don Box did bring up a common framing format[1], but I'm having a hard
> > time seeing the format mitigating the overall approach.)
>
> Actually, if I get time I will write an article on how XML is a lousy
> envelope format (whatever its other virtues!).
Hmm. Interesting. One of the things we all seemed to agree on in the IPC10 Web services panel was that XML envelopes (or headers, at any rate) were a useful thing. I'll be interested in reading your more recent insights.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://fourthought.com
http://4Suite.org http://uche.ogbuji.net
Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/
RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think10/index.html
WSDL and the Wild, Wild West - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6004
XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
