Re: A simpler Web service response format

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> >WebService::Validator::CSS::W3C [1] and the equivalent perl module for 
> >feed validator use SOAP::Lite library quite succesfully. 
> Actually, no it doesn't. Initial investigations seem to be showing that 
> it is SOAP::Lite that is breaking the install process for LogValidator 
> due to dependency failures. :-(

No. There are faulty dependencies around SOAP::Lite that cascade into
something annoying. And that has little to do with the discussion at
hand, frankly. Would you say that using HTTP is bad because LWP happens
to have a broken dependency at the moment?
> Dependencies are bad. The fewer you have the better. Providing umpteen 
> different interfaces to a service just adds umpteen-1 extra ways the 
> service can break.

I disagree with you. Dependencies can go wrong, that far is true. But
dependencies are good, insofar as they allow developers not to all
reinvent the wheel. Don't let your frustration lead you to unwise


Received on Thursday, 1 February 2007 14:37:56 UTC