- From: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:54:11 -0800
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Perhaps I can help here, having debated this subject many times on many mail lists over a couple of years. The major benefit of using SOAP and XML-RPC is the compatibility you get between various scripting and runtime environments. You could get something similar with basic HTTP, but once you get beyond a few scalars you see the advantages pretty clearly. It's simpler. If you didn't use XML to pass complex structures, what would you use in its place? I discount the concern about "companies with large and specialized servers to sell" -- unless XP is a lot more complex than SOAP and XML-RPC, there will be plenty of choices starting at no cost and pretty simple. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kurt Cagle" <cagle@olywa.net> To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com> Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Integrating XP Into Web Infrastructure > I'd actually like to second this question. The obvious limitation of HTTP > queries seems to revolve around datatypes, but that to me seems to be more > an issue of system implementation -- in general, if you know the parameters > and their types to be passed, type becomes largely irrelevent (especially if > a mechanism exists for consistently converting a query string/POST request > into an XML structure on the server side with an established schema map > reference. To make an XML Server request through SOAP or similar mechanisms > I have to create an XML DOM, populate it, send it through a dedicated pipe > function, while sending an HTTP request with query string parameters can be > done through a generic POST or QS method call. It's also worth pointing out > that XSLT has no mechanism currently for sending XML to a URI (though it > will with XSLT1.1) but with a query string based web services interface you > could call a web service with a document function and incorporate the > results directly into the processor stream. > > I worry that in our host to build RPC functionality through XML that we > overlook simple solutions that do not add significantly to infrastructure > overhead in favor of those that benefit companies with large and specialized > servers to sell. > > -- Kurt Cagle > -- Author, XML Developer's Handbook > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com> > To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 5:20 PM > Subject: Integrating XP Into Web Infrastructure > > > > I just finished reading the XP Reqs and I had a few questions about how XP > > would fit into the web infrastructure. > > > > It seems to be acknowledged a popular use of XP will be as a RPC > mechanism. > > However, other XML-based RPC protocols (XML-RPC, SOAP) have been > criticized > > because of their lack of URIs and misuse of HTTP. The major problem seems > to > > be that information only available through some sort of RPC request cannot > > be given a URI (and thus cannot do any of the things that result from > that). > > Additionally, such systems use a single HTTP method (generally POST) and > > thus muddy the semantic meaning behind an HTTP method. > > > > As an example, there is a SOAP stock price RPC where a SOAP envelope > > containing a ticker symbols in responded by an XML message containing the > > stock price. Many argue that such a simple system should be implemented > > using HTTP GET instead of SOAP. > > > > With that introduction, I have the following questions for the WG: > > > > 1) Do you feel that such RPC/HTTP services are "bad" and would you > recommend > > against their use with XP? > > > > 1a) If so, do you plan to structure XP in such a way that the negatives of > > such services are lessened? > > > > 2) Do you expect to preserve the semantics of HTTP requests (HEAD, GET, > > POST, PUT) with the HTTP binding? > > > > 3) Do you have plans to attach a URI of some sort to an XP message? (It > > seems that this would certainly ease use cases 805, 807 and 809 (Routing, > > Tracking and Caching).) > > > > Thanks for information you can provide on this subject, > > > > -- > > Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| my.info > > <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://my.theinfo.org> > > AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the future of news, today > > >
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 21:54:42 UTC