• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>
• To: "'Ruslan@S...'" <Ruslan@S...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:09:29 -0700

> From: Ruslan Shevchenko [mailto:Ruslan@S...]

<snip/>

> What's  bad in XML/SOAP - that it's simple.

I disagree that this is a liability of SOAP. Personally, I think it has been
demonstrated over and over again that complex, monolithic specs that try to
solve every problem on the planet usually fail. Accusing SOAP of being
limited due to its simplicity is like saying that the foundation of a house
is too simple to be used for human habitation. That misses the point
entirely.

Any seasoned software engineer knows the value of modular, layered
architectures. I fail to see why it is so controversial to approach protocol
specifications in the same manner. SOAP is suitable as a substrate for
protocols that give you all the complexity you want (check out ebXML as one
example), but is equally suitable for the simple cases that don't need
additional complexity.

• Prev by Date: RE: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb
• Next by Date: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb
• Previous by thread: Re: Extreme diversity
• Next by thread: [Announce] dbXML XML Database 1.0 Beta Release
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread