W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2001

RE: Announce: A brief history of SOAP

From: Alan Moore <Alan@tensquare.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:25:40 -0800
Message-ID: <B506839196DDD311A9FA009027D61B2FB40FAA@atlantis.tensquare.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org '" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
With all due respect to both Don and Dave, I think the disconnect here has
to do with a difference in assumptions.

Dave is assuming that the developers using SOAP today are doing so directly
w/o the help of tools/metadata and cannot wait for those elements to mature.

Don is assuming that the only developers to use SOAP will be the tool
builders who will make the low level details irrelevant in the near future.

Both assumptions appear to be correct and differ only in the timelines in
which end results are needed or expected.

The tools Don is referring to are not going to be built in a day so Dave's
comments are relevant - the people on the streets need interop today even if
it has to be achieved by brute force and agreed upon "mano a mano".

On the other hand, Dave's valuable experience fuels Don's argument about
hiding the low level grunge. To ignore this point is to pass up an
opportunity to make life simpler for everyone down the road.

For what it is worth...

alan



-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Winer
To: Box, Don; 'Fredrik Lundh'
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Sent: 3/31/01 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Announce: A brief history of SOAP

Don doesn't know the difference betw his opinion and fact.

I've given a lot of thought to your pov, now do the return favor.

When I see a layer in software I always ask if I can collapse it, to
simplify the workings of the machine underneath.

Your mind seems to work the other way.

I ask "What flexibility was put there at the beginning that is no longer
needed based on what we know about how people use this?"

This is how you get to usability in all things. I've got a long career
behind me learning that lesson and a lot of credibility in the form of
products that were commercial hits, moneymakers and award-winners. Until
it's simple and efficient no one gets it. Then it can get horribly
complex
and yucky, after it gets in. At the beginning it must be easy.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why the SOAP world is perpetually at the
starting gate Don?

Maybe it would be a good idea to stop and think about that.

Dave



----- Original Message -----
From: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>
To: "'Fredrik Lundh'" <fredrik@pythonware.com>; "Box, Don"
<dbox@develop.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Announce: A brief history of SOAP


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fredrik Lundh [mailto:fredrik@pythonware.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:35 AM
> > To: Box, Don
> > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Announce: A brief history of SOAP
> >
> >
> > > You can read it at http://www.develop.com/dbox/postsoap.html
> >
> >     "Does SOAP/XML Messaging make sense without something like
> >     WSDL? No way"
> >
> > huh?  I've got lots of users for my python soap implementation,
> > and now you're saying that what they do doesn't make sense?
>
> Without a machine-readable metadata format, there are too many
opportunities
> for misinterpretation, especially when bridging to type systems that
have
a
> strict type system (e.g., Java, .NET, C++/COM, JDBC). This got hashed
out
on
> the SOAP list ages ago.
>
> > what have we missed?
>
> In a script-only world, probably nothing. However, for folks who
aren't
> using Perl/Python/Tcl etc, the lack of metadata makes all of this XML
stuff
> very stone-age.
>
> I firmly believe that within 12 months, schema compilers will render
things
> like the DOM and SAX fairly obsolete except for low-level XML wonks.
In
the
> absence of metadata, this just can't happen.
>
> DB
> http://www.develop.com/dbox
>
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2001 16:25:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:00 GMT