Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> protocol. That's why I'm surprised you say that SOAP/WSDL/... services > are a good idea because "It's great to have common data syntax, > networking protocols, why not app protocols?" I don't understand what > this has to do with SOAP. SOAP is not an app protocol. That's why I deliberately included WSDL, nu? > Okay, here's a SOAP message, please tell me what SOAP says it means: ... > If you give me an HTTP or DNS or for that matter IP message, I think > that I will be able to tell you much more about what it means according > to the HTTP, or DNS or IP specs than you will be able to tell me about > the message above Of course you will because you have an external schema -- the specs -- that defines syntax and semantics. Trying to decode IP traffic without the RFCs is the same as decoding SOAP messages without their data definition. Play fair. :) > Of course. They are experiencing success! The perfect time to switch > strategies. ;) Unh no. They want the header extensibility and message routing, etc., made possible by the SOAP framework. /r$
|
