|
Don Box said: "Also, please be aware
that you are comparing a spec that was written by multiple engineers in
"spec-speak" to a web page written by one web-journalist/entrepreneur. I'd be
curious to see what actual features of SOAP you find redundant or superflous.
Additionally, I'd love to know if you see the limitations of XML-RPC, or did
Dave's anti-MS posting on the SOAP list convert you to XML-RPC simply on
principle?"
Here's the full text of my "anti-MS posting on the
SOAP list" (it was cross-posted on the XML-RPC list):
http://www.egroups.com/group/xml-rpc/696.html?
If I may characterize my own message, I'd say it's
pro-Microsoft. It says that MS got it before the other gorillas. And that
they're good at backward compatibility, and that they're fierce competitors.
OTOH, they may have a limited playbook at MS. They did so well at winning the
browser wars, why not try it again?
Anyway, we seem to
be emerging from a period of FUD, thankfully.There are some differences of
opinion. MS has been reluctant to Embrace and Extend. This was puzzling to me. I
talked to a former MS exec and he opened my eyes to another way of parsing the
events. I end it by saying "Perhaps I have been naive.
I'm amazed how dense I can be!"
So if anything it's an
anti-Dave message! ;->
Dave
PS: Don showed that SOAP can work with XML-RPC.
Bravo! Why are we fighting?? Hello. Peace on earth, goodwill toward
men.
| 
Cart
